A few of those:
The anchor of this election season has been a fairly fixed sentiment among the electorate that they have had enough of George Bush and Republican rule.
That, in and of itself, doesn't determine the outcome. Candidate races come down to: Compared with whom? John McCain, for example, has consistently outperformed the Republican brand in the presidential race.
Left largely unexamined, however, is the flip side of the sentiment to give the Republicans the boot. What would it mean if voters gave Democrats largely unchecked power at the national level, the presidency and large enough majorities in Congress to run over the Republican minority? Would the result be something the American people want?
In reciting this litany, however, it becomes clear how little grounds the Republicans have to criticize it, except for taxes.
Big government spending programs? Bush proposed the largest expansion of the federal role in education since Jimmy Carter with No Child Left Behind and the largest expansion of the entitlement state since Lyndon Johnson with his Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Most congressional Republicans supported them.
Racking up deficits? Bush is the champ.
Interfering in the private economy? The Bush administration just partially nationalized the banks, forcing healthy banks to accept public capital they didn't want.
John McCain once could have legitimately claimed to serve as a check on Democratic excesses, particularly on spending. And Americans seem to like divided government.
However, McCain supported the $700 billion bailout and proposes that the federal government spend an additional $300 billion buying up mortgages at face value. Vetoing earmarks isn't going to make up for that.
So, there you have it: An election Republicans deserve to lose but Democrats don't deserve to win.