Amazing that Mike Oliverio defeated Alan Mollohan from "the right" in the Democratic primary. "The right" being in opposition to the HCR that Mollohan voted for. But this is a common mistake that CW writers like Chris Cillizza make. Maybe not a mistake but just a simplistic DC mindset for expaining things only from a "who wins" partisan perspective based on which party holds the Presidency.

It's widely admitted in Democratic circles that HCR was a boon for the corporate healthcare system, that it does very little in the short-term for many, and in the long run will place a unpopular mandate tax and need to be radically reformed to make it anywhere near a plausible solution. In fact, many of the most vocal supporters will quietly tell you they know its a failure but the "foot in the door" means a way of fixing it later. In the mean time though, politicians opposing HCR as it was passed is much more of a populist anti-corporate stance than it is a stance of the rightwingers-- they for the most part have no problem with rampant corporate power and profits.

The UK is so much more pragmatic than the US when it comes to political rule. I believe it comes from having such a short election cycle, that opinions are not hardened in campaigning opposition over months but mere weeks, instead. Here the hyperbole of campaigning has extended into governing as well. There's a chance that the new-formed coalition between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives might just work. Of course, it could just as likely flame out with a sour economic recovery and ideological differences. The notion that the Lib Dems might "continue the process of detoxification" for the Conservative Party is interesting, and a possibility, with the emergence of the UKIP getting quite a few votes this past GE.

538, which didn't do very well in predicting the outcome (who did?) has a retropective post up. Nate chalks it up to a lack of data, but it was well known that up to 40% of Lib Dem voters were being polled as saying up to the last day that they could change their mind. Well, they did! 

Further Silver: "..for the Liberal Democrats, it was quite erratic. Although they received about the same share of the vote overall, they did much better in some constituencies and much worse in others..." I mentioned this before, and it goes along with my take away that the local LD candidate in many places was just not as strong a candidate as the more adept candidate put up by either Conservatives or Labour.  The Lib Dems are to be congratulated for running a national campaign, but a better focus on getting stronger candidates across the board would have yielded a outcome with more seats won.