Senate Democrats’ act is wearing thin. Oh, we’d like to “fix” Obamacare but Harry Reid won’t let us vote. Oh, we’d like to vote for the Keystone XL pipeline, but Harry Reid won’t let us. Oh, we really support Iran sanctions, but Harry Reid won’t let us vote. Oh, we think Obama acting unilaterally on immigration would be a mistake, but Harry Reid would never let us vote to countermand it.

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 10: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) answers reporters' questions during a news conference to announce that Democrats will fast-track new legislation to prevent for-profit employers from refusing to cover health benefits for religious reasons at the U.S. Capitol July 10, 2014 in Washington, DC. Co-authored by Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the legislation would override the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case and compel for-profit business to cover contraception for their employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) this month at the Capitol.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Hey, who put that Harry Reid character in charge anyway? Oh, they did.

Senate Democrats are making two powerful arguments as to why they should be voted out. First, without them, Reid will lose his post. Votes can then take place on these important issues that have bipartisan consent and would be good for constituents. Which is better for Kentucky’s coal workers and overall economy: a Senate with Mitch McConnell as majority leader or one with Alison Lundergan Grimes who is with them in spirit but can’t force Reid to take a vote? National Republican Senatorial Campaign communications director Brad Dayspring says succinctly, “Their entire strategy has highlighted the fact that the most immediate way to fix Washington is to fire Harry Reid.” The only way to do that is one senator at a time.

Second, Democratic incumbents who ran on the promise that they’d be an “independent” voice for their people back home couldn’t deliver. Implicit in that was the recognition that Senate leadership and the president are too liberal for the folks back home. But if now they are at Reid’s and Obama’s mercy, what is the purpose of having a Democratic senator there?

The issue of Democrats being blocked by their own leadership has the effect — as does Obamacare, which all incumbents elected in 2008 and now on the ballot voted for — of nationalizing the election. Dayspring observes, “Barack Obama’s own speeches reinforce the perception that Harry Reid sits in the center of Washington’s incompetence, dysfunction, and deception.”

If the election becomes an up-or-down vote on the Reid-Obama dysfunctional, too-liberal government, then the states Mitt Romney won in 2012 (Arkansas, Montana, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Dakota) are especially ripe for the picking. And the prospect that there will be no check on a runaway president (because Reid won’t lift a finger to rein him in) will give Republicans plenty of incentive to turn out in droves.

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.