The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Now in Power, G.O.P. Vows Cuts in State Budgets,” describes a level of draconian cuts planned for state governments that will totally makeover the compassion of this country and the needs of many poor people.

The article notes that, beyond the Federal government that has received the lion’s share of the news coverage, Republicans gained more than 690 seats in state legislatures, and total power in both the state and legislative branches in 20 states.

Most of them vowed to avoid tax increases, and with stimulus money now drying up, that will mean extensive budget cuts to balance the books. These cuts will include education, social services to help the poor, and public employee unions.

Two states, Maine and Wisconsin, switched from all Democratic rule (in each of their three branches) to all Republican rule.

When the voters start to experience some of these cuts, they will long to have the Democrats back in power, but it will be too late. The Republicans will overreach just like they accused the Democrats of doing, and will re-elect President Obama in the process, but they will put the country through hell in the meantime.

The article also noted that many of the state governments will now try to resist implementation of the new health care law. I’ve got to say that the Republicans lost the healthcare vote in Congress and should now try to make the law work. That’s how our system should work. You have a democratic contest then respect the result.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “G.O.P. Takes House,” in banner headlines describes a long anticipated outcome yet somewhat of a shock nevertheless. In the election coverage last night, long-time Democratic representatives, some with more than 10 terms under their belt, suffered the results of a Republican tidal wave.

Conservative stalwarts like Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania swept into the Senate as well though Harry Reid squeaked through to keep his seat, and the Democrats maintained marginal control of the Senate.

Meanwhile, the turnover of leadership in the House was called relatively early in the evening on MSNBC, and John Boehner gave a victory speech as he was poised to assume leadership of the House.

There were some bright spots for Democrats as Andrew Cuomo became Governor of New York, Barbara Boxer held on to her California Senate seat, and, in one of the more bizarre developments, Jerry Brown became Governor (again) of California.

President Obama remained on the grounds of the White House all day long, suffering the ignominy of defeat and a much changed landscape for the remaining two years of his term. He even lost his own former Senate seat in Illinois to put the icing on the cake.

We’ll see now if the Republicans are responsible enough to govern in the House instead of just trying to gum up the works and throw stink bombs at President Obama.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Finding Clues to the Future in Flood of Midterm Data,” provides a scorecard to follow for election night, but it is just wishful thinking. All indications point to a Republican tsunami in races across the nation.

Thanks, in large part, to the election of Christine O’Donnell by the Tea Party in Delaware, it looks like the Democrats will hold on to the Senate while losing the House. Even this, however, poses major difficulties ahead for President Obama, because with House leadership comes the power of subpoena, and the Republicans have pledged to use that power to launch a series of investigations.

The presence of the Tea Party complicates matters further because these starry-eyed individuals will be coming to Washington with a series of expectations about changing the way things are done. Their drive for ideological purity will thwart any attempts at negotiations between Democrats and Republicans and probably result in even more of a gridlock than we are facing today.

Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden and former President Bill Clinton are crisscrossing the country in a last desparate effort to gather up votes.

It all seems like too little too late. The real test will come the day after election day when President Obama will decide how to react to the Republican victory. Will he cave in to Republican demands or fight for what he believes in?

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “With Time Short, Parties Advance Last Arguments,” doesn’t contain much good news for the Democrats. According to the statistics, 29 House seats are either in Republican hands or leaning Republican, with 39 seats needed to take control of the House. That seems okay in itself, but as many as 42 additional seats are considered toss-ups.

That means Democrats would need to take 33 out of 42 toss-up seats in a year that is definitely not trending their way. Okay, maybe some of the leaning Republican seats will go the other way, but I wouldn’t bet the house on it.

However, as any political professional knows, the last weekend before the election is all about GOTV — get out the vote. Democrats are widely believed to hold the edge here, and if they can expand the size of the voting pool, generate some enthusiasm or at least concern about what a Republican victory could mean, then they might be able to squeak through.

It is amazing to me how middle and lower-class voters can be persuaded to vote for the Republican Party against their own economic self-interest. The Tea Party may seem very compelling with all its rhetoric about the Constitution, but the day after a Republican victory, it is the corporations who will be walking the halls of power, not the housewives.

The lead story in the New York Times this morning, “Coalition That Vaulted Democrats Into Power has Frayed, Poll Finds,” proves that public opinion is in the eyes of the beholder. Despite loud and cantakerous proclamations of victory by the Republicans, the poll raises some thorny and surprising issues.

For one thing, more people still have a favorable view of the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, with 46 percent favoring the Democrats and 41 percent the Republicans. That result flies in the face of how people said they would vote with the results flipped: 46 percent are voting Republican and 40 percent Democratic.

How to explain the incongruity? Well, maybe people have been overinfluenced by noisy protests from the loud minority that is the Tea Party. Or maybe the national healthcare legislation was created in an unseemly manner. Or maybe, it’s just an off-year election.

Despite the loud protests about President Obama, he is in a very similar position to Bill Clinton in 1994. At a 43 percent approval rating, he is at the exact same level.

One disquieting effort about the poll, however, concerns the level of support of women who have always supported the Democrats over the Republicans since this particular poll was inaugurated.

With all the hoopla of the election, it will be what happens afterwards that will be the most important. Will the Republicans waste another two years in their power grab or actually try to work with Democrats to get something done for the American people?

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Divide on Deficit Likely to Grow After Election,” turns the current narrative upside the down. Pundits were predicting that Republicans in charge of the House and Democrats in the executive branch would have to cooperate, especially since Republicans were now assuming the mantle of government.

However, this article suggests an alternate scenario. Republicans would be bolstered with new representatives from the far right due to the Tea Party phenomenon, and Democrats would be more solidly liberal as their Southern moderates were knocked out of power.

The picture is not a pretty one. You think things are polarized now? Wait until the screaming starts as the wheels of government come to a screeching halt.

The most immediate casualty of any renewed polarization would involve the extension of the Bush tax cuts. If Democrats and Republicans are unable to agree on taxes for the rich, the whole edifice could come down, and that would mean higher taxes for everyone.

Meanwhile, the Commission President Obama formed to help make difficult decisions about Social Security, military spending and other sensitive matters, will be issuing its report into a chaotic environment. Even if the Democrats and Republicans on the panel are able to agree, their elected audience seems certain to deadlock.

The result, as The New York Times notes, may be deficit reduction by attrition.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Pro-G.O.P. Groups Prepare Big Push at End of Races,” shows how much the Republican Party has benefited from the Citizen United ruling by the Supreme Court and the new capability for anonymous corporate donors to influence the outcome of elections.

The Tea Party, which claims to be so pro-Constitution, should question whether the Founding Fathers intended these actions, where a small few have such an effect on the overall result. While masterminds like Karl Rove coordinate a phalanx of shady Republican organizations, the real winners are the conglomerates who hide their donations while affecting the result in as many as 80 races.

According to the article, the conservative groups are coordinated from an office suite just across from the White House with color-coded master sheets to ensure there is no duplication of effort. One wonders if this kind of coordination is legal even though the anonymous donations might be.

The groups include American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, American Action Network, American Future Fund, the 60 Plus Association and many more. Thanks to their contributions, many key Democrats are being outspent by as much as six or seven-to-one.

Their methods are the usual political dirty tricks, and one hopes they are limited to that. The role these unaccountable groups can play represents a threat to our democracy.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Large Donations Aid U.S. Chamber in Election Drive,” shows an inexcusable political partisanship of the organization that goes far beyond its charter and reason for existence.

With impeccable research, the writers of the article show that half of its contributions — based on a total membership of three million businesses and 300,000 members — came from just 45 donors in 2008. I’m sure the figures are even more skewed this year, but the Chamber is protected from releasing them. 90 percent of the donations are used to support Republican candidates. Large million dollar donations from Dow Chemical, Prudential Financial and Texaco coincided with consideration of legislation by Congress essential to each. And the Chamber of Commerce has now become the largest lobbyist on Capitol Hill.

Now, I’m pretty sure that 90 percent of the Chamber’s members are not Republican, so for the Chamber to spend that proportion of its funds to support Republican candidates represents a misappropriation of their membership dues. This is just one step short of fraud.

I run a business, too, Cut-It-Out Communications, and I am saddened to see an organization formed to provide support for me acting against my wishes. Whatever the status of campaign finance reform, we need internal reform by the Chamber of Commerce.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “In Poll, Voters Convey Wariness About Paladino,” shows that at least New Yorkers have some common sense, even if the rest of the country seems to be going crazy.

The results of the poll, a 59-to-24 percent lead for Andrew Cuomo, show that Paladino has gone a little too much to the extreme, even in these turbulent times. His promise to “take a baseball bat” to Albany is not helping his campaign as most respondents to the poll believed he does not have the right “temperament” to be Governor.

When asked what quality came in mind to describe Mr. Paladino, the most popular resposnes were angry, bigoted and obnoxious. One person said that he’s not just angry, he’s “scary-angry.”

Not that the results represent any overwhelming vote of confidence in Andrew Cuomo. When asked what first comes to mind when they hear his name, the overwhelming response from voters was his father, Mario Cuomo.

However, credit goes where credit is due. Andrew Cuomo has run an excellent campaign, taking a page from the notebook of George Pataki, whom Mr. Cuomo famously describes as holding Mayor Guiliani’s coat during 9/11, effectively ending his previous run for Governor. That notebook basically says, “shut up and keep quiet. Let the challenger make the mistakes.”

Andrew Cuomo could be an excellent Governor, however. If elected, I think he may very well rise to the occasion.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “G.O.P. is Poised to Gain in Races for Governor,” shows the potential long-term effects of today’s toxic political environment for incumbents. Democrats may lose a number of state races, including those for governor, and, as a result, lose influence over Congressional redistricting and the ground rules for elections in the 2012 Presidential contest.

All practicing Democrats should remember the way Ohio was stolen in George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, when only a few booths were available in Democratic-leaning urban districts, leading to hours of waiting and discouraging many potential voters. With Republican governors in charge of states such as Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania, all key battlegrounds with likely Republican winners, this pattern will be repeated in spades.

Other possible Republican wins may occur throughout the midwest, with a possible sweep a very real possibility. As the article notes, all these victories could affect the implementation of President Obama’s healthcare legislation and many other bills as well.

Finally, the new Republican governors could affect the redistricting based on the recent U.S. census, with effects lasting for a decade. For any Democratic partisan, the timing of this year’s political tsunami is particularly unfortunate.

One can only hope the Democrats will realize the scope of these ramifications and will make it out to the polls. There’s still also time for an October surprise … maybe the capture of Osama bin Laden?