The other thing I've been thinking about today is the First Rule of Economics over at Charlie Pierce's blog on Esquire - "Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money" - and the seeds of voter discontent.

Among the inevitable unpacking of results, I expect we'll find that one of the themes of why people voted Trump was economic uncertainty. The idea that even with improvements in employment and (although lagging) higher wages, there isn't a feeling of financial security, that people can't save for larger expenses and aren't confident that what work they do have is going to provide for their family (or even continue).

Which leads to this question - what if, rather than spending the bulk of his political capital and Democratic majorities in Congress getting the Affordable Care Act passed, President Obama focused on a comprehensive recovery and jobs bill? I know, there were a number of measures passed along these lines, but I can't help but think that the seeds yesterday's results were sown when the recovery seemed to benefit the financial sector (and largely passed on holding anyone accountable) at the expense of individual workers.

I've been thinking a lot about Scott Brown today.

Brown, as some of you may know, was the Republican state senator who parlayed the popular anger over whatever people were angry about in 2010 to win the special election to complete the US Senate term of Teddy Kennedy. He did so by beating Martha Coakley, the somewhat flawed and uneasy campaigner who was, at the time, the state's attorney general.

A Republican of middling talents fueled by populism taking a surprise victory from a more experienced Democratic woman.

Sound familiar?

For those of you wondering how history might repeat itself, Brown lost his re-election bid to Elizabeth Warren. Ponder that.

Thinking about Brown also has me realizing that, as an early Trump supporter, he could wind up being the US ambassador to the UN or something. I need to stop thinking about Scott Brown.