Yesterday I laid out four election-night scenarios, from worst-case to best-case. I didn’t really believe the worst-case would come to pass, but it has. We will now have four more years of a president who seeks to, in his words, transform America. For the next two years, he will still have a Senate on his side. Only the House stands between us and his plans. At the very least, Obamacare in all its ugliness will now be implemented, along with the inherent threat it poses to religious liberty. We will continue our march toward that fiscal cliff so many have warned about. Our culture will drift even further from a Biblical basis unless we can turn it around.

Tonight I’m slated to offer an analysis of the election at a local Republican club. I need to take today to figure out just exactly what needs to be said. Rather than try to lay out in this blog today a full response to last night’s dismal results, I’m going to hold off until tomorrow. I need time to process what has occurred and offer the best diagnosis and prognosis I can.

My intent is to go beyond mere number-crunching and an examination of strategies, both successful and failed. I want to hear from the Lord today about the future of this nation and what part He wants His people to play. If you’re interested in my ponderings, come back to this blog tomorrow. Meanwhile, I’ll just leave you with this from the book of Isaiah, a verse I have used many times but which is even more apropos the morning after:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil. Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

By the end of this day—barring any legal challenges or chicanery—we should know the political landscape for the next two to four years. No one expects the House to revert to the Democrats, so that much is set even before the counting begins. But the Senate, and of course the presidency, are the real questions. Let’s examine the possible scenarios, from worst-case to best-case.

Scenario #1

Barack Obama retains the presidency and Democrats continue to control the Senate. What will this mean? We will be in the same state we are currently. The House will try to pass legislation to correct the debt Armageddon and Obamacare, but the Senate will not act on anything the House does. It will remain adamant in opposition to the Republican agenda. The Congress, in this scenario, will be as it is now—worthless. This will lead to Obama doing what he has already begun to do, which is to rule by executive orders. No amount of protest that his actions are unconstitutional will avail. With a Justice Department firmly in his control, he will be free to do whatever he wishes, thereby foisting even more government control over the lives of individuals and trampling religious liberty through Obamacare. That “signature” piece of legislation will go forward without anything to stop it. By the end of his term, the United States will be pretty much like the European states that have given themselves over to full-scale socialism. We will also be on the verge of total bankruptcy. Oh, and since Supreme Court justices have to be confirmed by the Senate, he will get to replace perhaps three of the nine currently on the bench with ideological soulmates.

Scenario #2

Barack Obama stays in as president and the Senate changes hands to the Republicans. Under this scenario, with both houses of Congress controlled by the Republicans, certain pieces of legislation aimed at undoing the Obama agenda will pass both chambers and be sent to the White House for Obama’s approval. He will approve nothing coming from a Republican Congress. The veto will become his favorite weapon. On occasion, Congress may be able to muster a 2/3 vote to override a veto, but unless enough Democrats are willing to join with Republicans against the titular leader of their party, most of the proposed legislation will go down to defeat. Then Obama will do as noted above in scenario #1: he will rule by executive orders. The only saving grace is that he might not get the justices on the Supreme Court he wants, but that’s no guarantee. Senate Republicans, on the whole, have never been known for their backbones.

Scenario #3

Mitt Romney wins the presidency, but the Senate does not turn Republican. Under the continued “leadership” of Harry Reid, stonewalling will be the rule. Romney will do whatever he can within the powers of the presidency to remedy the damage that has been created by Obama. He says he will give waivers from Obamacare to every state. That will be a step in the right direction. However, getting any genuine reform legislation through Congress will be tough, nearly impossible, with Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Romney also will have hard sledding replacing Supreme Court justices with anyone worthwhile since the Senate has to approve them. Without a Republican Senate, Romney’s achievements will be minimal.

Scenario #4

Mitt Romney sweeps into the presidency by a significant margin, thereby helping Republicans take the Senate as well. Coattails do exist. This is obviously the rosiest scenario. The real question is whether Republicans will follow through and do what’s necessary to reverse course on the last four years and will learn their lesson about squandering a majority the way they did during the Bush presidency. Conservatives have always been wary of Romney’s foundational beliefs; they will have to hold his feet to the fire, but they will have some victories to cheer whether they get everything they desire or not. Obamacare should be shelved; the national debt should be brought under control; justices who believe in the original wording and intent of the Constitution should be put on the Court; Biblical morality should be upheld. This is not necessarily guaranteed, but this is the only scenario that holds such promise.

Which scenario do I think will play out today? My analysis of the current state of the race tells me it should be either #3 or #4. I see #3 as more likely, but you never know what can happen when people pray and work for what they believe in. And a lot of people have been doing both. May the Lord give us another opportunity to correct the mistakes we have made. A little divine intervention would be very nice.

The Lord spoke through the prophet Jeremiah these words:

“For I know the plans that I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans for welfare and not calamity to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.”

Yes, I know that was a word for ancient Israel, but it is a principle—a general truth—that can apply to us today. May it be so.

Tomorrow is D-Day. The decision will be made, after a marathon campaign season. I will be speaking at a local Republican Club on Wednesday evening, giving my analysis of the election results. I hope it will be a joyous analysis.

If you have been watching any of the final campaign events, you should have no trouble spotting the difference between the candidates at this juncture. Obama sounds pugnacious, angry, even a little resentful. He resorted to the word “revenge” when calling upon his followers to vote. Revenge? For what? Romney is not in power. He hasn’t done anything for which one should seek revenge. That comment showcased a petty incumbent who seems offended that anyone would even dare to knock him off his perch.

Romney, on the other hand, has been quite winsome in his speaking, exuding optimism for the future and a quiet confidence that he will be able to get the job done. His crowds, unlike Obama’s, have been huge and enthusiastic. He’s now even foraying into formerly forbidden territory, making stops in Pennsylvania. Polls show he has pulled even in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa. He’s slightly ahead in Wisconsin and making it a tight race in Minnesota, of all places. It may be somewhat clichéd to talk of momentum, but it is clearly visible on the Romney side.

Obama has so much to answer for—from a terrible economy to a government takeover of healthcare that threatens religious liberty, from a futile stimulus that spread its money to his cronies in the unions and green industries to a foreign policy that is unraveling. Libya is not going away, no matter how he tries to ignore it. Even with all the help he’s received from an obedient media, the word is getting out that his sympathies for Muslim extremists led to inadequate security and death. The word is getting out that he failed to protect our diplomats. The mainstream media no longer holds a monopoly on the news:

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the slain ex-Navy seals who gave his life to save others, has spoken out frankly about how the president’s inaction is responsible for his son’s death. Does anyone remember when Cindy Sheehan tried to make life miserable for George Bush when her son was killed in action? Recall how she became a media celebrity? Not so Charles Woods.

Evangelicals, despite Romney’s Mormonism, have rallied to his side because of Obama’s war on Biblical morality, from abortion on demand to same-sex marriage to trying to force Christian organizations to violate their deeply held beliefs with an Obamacare mandate. Obama has tried hard to accuse Republicans of a war on women. Nothing could be more hypocritical:

This may be the most important presidential election in American history because we’ve never before had a president so eager to transform America into a socialist utopia. If he succeeds in holding on to his office, the next four years will be nightmarish for those of us who want righteousness to prevail. The nightmare needs to be averted. I believe it can be. I pray it can be.

Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Two things I asked of You, do not refuse me before I die: Keep deception and lies far from me, give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is my portion, that I not be full and say, “Who is the Lord?” Or that I not be in want and steal, and profane the name of my God.

There is a kind of man who curses his father and does not bless his mother. There is a kind who is pure in his own eyes, yet is not washed from his filthiness.

If you have been foolish in exalting yourself or if you have plotted evil, put your hand on your mouth.

The more we find out about the September 11 attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the worse it looks for President Obama. Some are referring to it as Benghazigate, as if this is another Watergate moment. Keep in mind, though, that no one was killed in Watergate—the burglars never even succeeded in stealing any files from the Democrat headquarters. One thing is constant, however, as we compare the two: the coverup is alarming.

Reports indicate the president was watching the attack unfold in real time. We’re also told that those on the ground in Benghazi begged for help at least three times, and were denied each time. Where does the buck stop? Who is the one who has the authority to give the go-ahead for the requested aid? Why didn’t he follow through and help those whose lives were in jeopardy?

Now we’re told the counterterrorism group never was convened during the crisis. What was the president relying on for the security of our diplomatic personnel?

Four Americans were murdered. You would think that would be a major story, wouldn’t you? But the media and the president’s apologists [but I repeat myself] are downplaying it.

Are some of our media outlets asleep at the switch?

Or is more nefarious than that?

Only one news organization, Fox, has given this event the serious treatment it deserves, but without any help from other news sources and with the reelection endangered if anyone is allowed to investigate thoroughly, it has been tough going to get all the information. President Obama says there is a rigorous government investigation ongoing right now—which will, of course, not be concluded until after the election. This is not the fog of war; this is a different fog:

There are a multitude of reasons why Barack Obama should be denied a second term For those who are interested, I had a week-long series I entitled “The Case Against Barack Obama” that ran in this blog from September 17-21—you can check it out by clicking on those dates on the calendar to the right. Any one of those many reasons are enough to disqualify him from returning to the Oval Office, yet this latest episode in Libya is sufficient all by itself. May this reign of error come to an end next week.

Most of the polls are looking good for Romney five days away from the election. Perhaps the most encouraging are the polls taken of the early voters. Gallup has Romney ahead nationwide 52-45 among those voters. This is particularly positive since the Obama strategy was to get early voters out in mass. Maybe he has, but Republicans seem to be doing even better at it.

There are some polls that are still putting Obama ahead in key swing states, but the internals of those polls show the continuing oversampling of Democrats. For instance, one poll says Obama is four points ahead in Pennsylvania, but when you look at the sample, you see it gives a +13 for Democrats. That’s rather ludicrous. Even in 2008, Obama won Pennsylvania by only +7. Are we really supposed to believe the Democrat turnout will be that high this year? Are we supposed to ignore the renewed enthusiasm on the Republican side?

Of course, even if Romney should triumph, that victory would be severely diminished if Republicans don’t take both houses of Congress. It’s nearly unanimous among analysts that they will maintain control of the House, but the real struggle will be for the Senate. If Romney’s win is large enough, his coattails will probably pull enough Republicans into the Senate to allow them to become the majority. If the opposite should happen, we will once again be stuck in a gridlocked situation—the Senate, controlled by Democrats, will balk at any and all changes the administration might want to make.

So the key to a genuine victory is to take not only the presidency but the Senate as well.

It’s worth pointing out that we have strayed from the original intent of the Founders for how our senators are chosen. The Constitution arranged for the state legislatures to choose the senators, not the people at large. The people already had their representatives in the House. The purpose of the Senate was to establish a body that would represent state legislatures and the laws passed at the state level.

During the Progressive Era [did it ever really end?] reformers agitated for a popular vote for senators, claiming it would be more democratic and that it would prove a remedy to the corruption that sometimes came to the forefront via state politics. The progressive faith in the intelligence and honesty of the people as opposed to the state legislatures [who, by the way, were elected by the people] led them to think that corruption would be contained if the people chose the senators instead. Is anyone really going to argue that corruption has been curbed by this alteration?

When the Seventeenth Amendment—direct election of senators—was ratified in 1913, the state legislatures lost their representation at the national level. No longer would senators have to answer to the state legislatures for their actions. No longer did they have to pay much attention to laws passed by those legislatures. They were no longer accountable to the legislatures but to the people. The job of senator changed from being a representative of state laws to being a representative of the people, even though the people already had their direct representatives in the House.

Some may say, “So what?” Why worry about a technicality like that? Well, it’s much more than a technicality. Let me offer a couple examples of how this has changed the course of the nation.

First, we have seen a slew of legislation emanating from Congress that puts the burden on the states to come up with funding for various initiatives. These laws are referred to as unfunded mandates. Now, if a senator had to answer directly to his state legislature for his actions, how many unfunded mandates do you think would pass Congress?

A more pernicious example has to do with the confirmation of justices to the federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court. The Senate is the tribunal that considers presidential appointments to the courts. Senators, when considering judges, don’t have to take into account their state laws before voting on their confirmation. In 1973, forty-four states had restrictions on abortion. One Supreme Court case—the infamous Roe v. Wade—in one ruling wiped out all forty-four of those state laws. The Court declared abortion a “right” that applied nationwide. If the senators had to answer to their state legislatures and were responsible for protecting their state laws, they might have given greater scrutiny to candidates for the courts. They might have rejected some whose background and judicial philosophy would have led to the overturning of those laws restricting abortion.

In a very real sense, the Seventeenth Amendment is partially responsible for the slaughter of approximately 55 million babies since 1973.

I would like to see the Seventeenth Amendment repealed and balance restored to the federal system. I would argue for returning to the original intent of the Founders. Give back to the states the representation they have lost in the Congress.

One more point: if state legislatures still chose their senators, there would be no drama this year. Republicans control the majority of the fifty state legislatures, and they would be sending Republican senators to Washington, thus providing the margin needed to take control of the Senate.

The decisions we make in the past sometimes come back to hurt us in the present. Now we’ll just have to wait and see what transpires next Tuesday, but it would have been so much easier if we had never challenged the wisdom of the Founders in the first place.

According to some accounts, President Obama was shocked that people thought he lost the first debate. He left the stage thinking he had won. He was probably the only person on his team who thought so. It testifies to the bubble he seems to live in. Ever since that seminal event, the polls have been moving in Romney’s favor. I wonder if it has yet occurred to Obama that he might actually lose this race?

If he’s going to pull this out, he’s going to need an even greater turnout than in 2008, but none of the data support that expectation. Where is he going to find those extra votes?

Perhaps one of his followers can come up with an ingenious plan to increase his vote total:

While that scenario may sound far-fetched, I urge you to watch carefully in these closing days before the election. You might be amazed by the depths to which the Obama campaign is willing to sink. I hope I’m wrong, but I must admit that one of my concerns is the various strategies they may be concocting at this moment to ensure reelection. We need to be alert to fraudulent means, old or new. For some people, “winning” is all that matters, and morality is seen as a mere encumbrance to be tossed aside. Watch, yes. And pray this election will be free of any taint of dishonesty or trickery. The future of this nation is in the balance.