For those who think Sen. Richard Lugar’s defeat was primarily attributable to running a weak campaign or for living outside of Indiana for decades, I’ve got one number in dissent: 38 percent. That’s the shockingly low percentage of the vote the six-term senator won this month, with a margin of defeat larger than any other senator in a primary over the past three decades. That’s a 2006 Rick Santorum-like loss, for a politician who had been accustomed to coasting to landslide victories. It suggests that even if Lugar had run a top-notch campaign, he would have been susceptible to forces outside of his control: a Republican electorate looking for new faces and more-outspoken conservative leadership.

This presidential election is coming down to two immutable facts that have become increasingly clear as November draws closer: President Obama will be running for a second term under a stagnant economy, and his two most significant legislative accomplishments—health care reform and a job-goosing stimulus—remain deeply unpopular. It doesn’t take a professional pundit to recognize that’s a very tough ticket for reelection.

In physics, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. President Obama could learn a lesson from Sir Isaac Newton and understand that while his policies promoting fairness may poll well in a vacuum, they could strike at the heart of the upscale, well-educated group of supporters who fueled his victory four years ago.

In the next month, we’re poised to see the latest death blow to centrism in both parties, with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana in the primary fight of his political life and a leading Blue Dog Democrat, Rep. Tim Holden, facing an unheralded but serious and well-funded challenger in next week’s Pennsylvania primary.

If President Obama loses reelection in November, the seeds of his defeat will have been planted in his fiery, populist campaign kickoff speech at the Associated Press luncheon last week. It was a negative, overly political address at sharp odds with his optimistic 2008 campaign message of hope and change. It seemed petty at times, mocking Mitt Romney for using the word “marvelous” and exaggerating proposed conservative entitlement reforms as “Social Darwinism.” All  of this while giving a supposedly nonpolitical, non-campaign address.

President Obama was supposed to have a billion-dollar bankroll for his campaign, Rick Perry was going to be Mitt Romney’s chief challenger, and Rick Santorum assuredly would be an afterthought. But the biggest misconception this election season is the depiction of Romney as a fatally flawed front-runner who stands little chance at defeating Obama.

I’m a numbers guy. Growing up, I loved tracking baseball players’ statistics, and I was fascinated by election results. For those who follow my Twitter feed (@hotlinejosh), it’s filled with polling crosstabs and tidbits that shed some light on the trajectory of the presidential race. So it may come as a surprise to hear that I’m growing sick of political polling. Or at least sick of the proliferation of polling, which has introduced a whole lot of noise and precious little clarity to understanding politics.

Last month, I argued that the influx of outside money into the political system was a boon for competition, putting on notice powerful incumbents from President Obama on down. And on the congressional side, we’re already beginning to see the dramatic implications when underdog challengers get help from third-party groups in getting their message out.

Reality clashes with conventional wisdom in some key battleground states.

The GOP Senate candidates are surprisingly moderate, while the Democrats are firmly liberal. So who prevails?