Verdict first, evidence later

Digby notes a question Andrea Mitchell asked David Axelrod yesterday, about whether Tuesday's Republican victories in two gubernatorial races will make it "much more difficult" to build a congressional coalition to vote for health care:

Andrea Mitchell: Is this going to make it much more difficult for you on the hill to build the coalitions for health care in the immediate future --- and there may even be a vote this Saturday ---do you think that Blue Dogs and moderates are going to be wary of the White House lead on this because they see these warning signs?

That reminded me of something Mitchell said a little earlier in yesterday's show: "There are warning signs here for him in term of building a coalition on health care ... because they're [the public] getting impatient."

This doesn't seem to make sense. If Tuesday showed us* that people are getting impatient for health care, shouldn't that make it easier to get the votes needed in congress to pass health care?

Over the last day and a half, it has frequently seemed that reporters reached the conclusion that the election results were bad news for health care reform, and then began desperately feeling around for an explanation for that conclusion.  And so they end up with arguments like Mitchell's: People are getting impatient for health care reform ... which is bad news for health care reform!  

* It probably didn't.  We're taking about two governor's races and two congressional elections.  Journalists are almost certainly reading too much into the results.