Well, I will say a bit more about the election.
First, not too surprisingly with the balance 32-30 and some members of the majority leaving something to be desired, it seems the Democrats will lose control of the NY State Senate. It is still unclear if it will be 31-31 (the lieutenant governor does not have a tiebreaker here) or something like 32-30 the other way. How much this matters is unclear though it can be very important in respect to redistricting of the NY federal congressional districts.
Second, in the U.S. Senate, the Democrats really basically did okay. The Republicans picked up six seats, but they basically came from open seats. Blanche Lincoln (yeah supporting her in the primary made sense, huh Obama/Clinton?) and Russ Feingold, the latter a tragic case, are the only incumbents (Joe Sestak* sort of was one, but not only came in 2007 but would be a newcomer to the Senate) who were defeated there. You will likely figure that in midterm elections, putting aside the times, that some seats would be gained here. And, there were a notable number of open seats, particularly if we include those running for full terms (e.g., Kirsten Gillibrand).
The real turnover was the the House of Representatives. First, it is notable that in both houses, there was transfers of power repeatedly since the 1990s. The margin of difference might be somewhat narrow realistically speaking, but it belies the sentiments of some that incumbents will simply always win. Not true. Second, a guess estimate would be that around half of the pick-ups were defeating those who won in 2008 (e.g., Alan Grayson) or were Blue Dogs, a soft underbelly in the first place. Toss in some open seats, and the breadth of the pick-ups is somewhat less significant than one might thing. Again, midterms and hard times will lead to changes usually, even if the majority party is not that bad.
I also noted last time that some appreciate divided government. I see the value of this but don't really trust the current national Republican Party further than you can throw them. This was not always true and at times individual members show some sanity even on the federal level. I also think someone like Marco Rubio might be credible even if I don't like much of what he stands for. Anyways, putting that aside, if this is a good thing, the election should not mean that Obama and the Democrats should just act like Republicans. [Or more so, some might add.] This will be what some will say. The election after all showed they are all losers. Strong independent candidates, not glorified Blue Dogs, are what the party needs.
They are not all winners, obviously, but going too far here is moronic. The net result of this election, as is often the case, will be a tiresome matter of trying to get the best we can. We see this in respect to Iraq (see Doonesbury today): the sane policy would be not to have gone in; we went in; then we had a decade (ongoing) of unpleasant at best of making the best of a bad situation. The scope of the problem made the debate important as is true in regard to supporting Democrats that support some sanity and good policies. It is fine to criticize them and their leader (Obama) as too mainstream and even malignant in various ways (see Glenn Greenwald), but ignoring that the two sides are not the same (if too similar) is also important. I fear that GG et. al. don't really recognize this at times.
I don't have that much faith (or whatever) that things will go that well over the next few years, especially since the election will be sold not a message to do things better but to do less (or more Republican), but Democrats should stick to their values, compromise less since that is what a minority power in the House should do (the Republicans just took that too far) and show themselves as credible leaders who should be trusted with power. If you think as Greenwald today said that the Republicans are really only "slightly less bad" (really? McCain/Palin would only be "slightly less bad" than Obama/Biden? seriously? this is the path to VOTING REPUBLICAN, since heck, marginal difference), the results are of the "told you so" variety. But, on some level, I agree. I expected more from the rhetoric, realizing in practice it would be watered down. Dawn Johnsen's defeat continues to be a symbol of that.
But, what is the answer? Alan Grayson feels a major part of his defeat is because his base didn't come out this time. Rachel Maddow put out poll results voters support the Democrats, but actual voters did not. This is a shoot yourself in the foot strategy. Staying home doesn't send the message that needs to be sent. The message sent is the winners are right. This has to be underlined and people like those beyond Gay USA (strong critics of Obama's policies in many cases) et. al. understand. You can be totally pissed off, but the the hell is the value of helping Republicans get into power? Primary challenges makes sense. If there was a third party option in some of these states, that would make sense. But, the message sent by staying home in general elections, or voting against Russ Feingold, is poisonous in practice. Hopefully, some valid lessons will be reached. Often they will not!
And, since the midterms were not too surprising (a third less Republicans could have gained seats and still the party would have gained control of the House), it made sense for the Democrats to use the time they had to get stuff done. Even if the critics are right that more should have been done. Some of the complaints are clearly b.s. anyways, including in regard to economic policies the Republicans supported or would have if they were in power at the time. Romneycare also was supported by a majority or a majority either supported it or wanted more. Some of the remainder didn't really know what was in it. Not a bad record of accomplishments, especially if DADT is actually overturned. Overall, taking into consideration the imperfections of governing, the Democrats simply did not do that bad of a job all things considered.
So, you try to be philosophical and not overcompensate. We shall see how it goes.
---
* Since his election was so close, there can be various arguments made regarding why he lost. I just read one person noting that his competitor benefited on the spending front, a lot of the money coming from outside the state. This was not a rarity. The Iowa Supreme Court anti-gay recall election was greatly funded that way. This underlines the importance of some sort of campaign finance reform law or addressing it overall, such as some form of the Disclose Act among other things. Such things, not just "Obama is a loser" should be addressed. Will they be?
First, not too surprisingly with the balance 32-30 and some members of the majority leaving something to be desired, it seems the Democrats will lose control of the NY State Senate. It is still unclear if it will be 31-31 (the lieutenant governor does not have a tiebreaker here) or something like 32-30 the other way. How much this matters is unclear though it can be very important in respect to redistricting of the NY federal congressional districts.
Second, in the U.S. Senate, the Democrats really basically did okay. The Republicans picked up six seats, but they basically came from open seats. Blanche Lincoln (yeah supporting her in the primary made sense, huh Obama/Clinton?) and Russ Feingold, the latter a tragic case, are the only incumbents (Joe Sestak* sort of was one, but not only came in 2007 but would be a newcomer to the Senate) who were defeated there. You will likely figure that in midterm elections, putting aside the times, that some seats would be gained here. And, there were a notable number of open seats, particularly if we include those running for full terms (e.g., Kirsten Gillibrand).
The real turnover was the the House of Representatives. First, it is notable that in both houses, there was transfers of power repeatedly since the 1990s. The margin of difference might be somewhat narrow realistically speaking, but it belies the sentiments of some that incumbents will simply always win. Not true. Second, a guess estimate would be that around half of the pick-ups were defeating those who won in 2008 (e.g., Alan Grayson) or were Blue Dogs, a soft underbelly in the first place. Toss in some open seats, and the breadth of the pick-ups is somewhat less significant than one might thing. Again, midterms and hard times will lead to changes usually, even if the majority party is not that bad.
I also noted last time that some appreciate divided government. I see the value of this but don't really trust the current national Republican Party further than you can throw them. This was not always true and at times individual members show some sanity even on the federal level. I also think someone like Marco Rubio might be credible even if I don't like much of what he stands for. Anyways, putting that aside, if this is a good thing, the election should not mean that Obama and the Democrats should just act like Republicans. [Or more so, some might add.] This will be what some will say. The election after all showed they are all losers. Strong independent candidates, not glorified Blue Dogs, are what the party needs.
They are not all winners, obviously, but going too far here is moronic. The net result of this election, as is often the case, will be a tiresome matter of trying to get the best we can. We see this in respect to Iraq (see Doonesbury today): the sane policy would be not to have gone in; we went in; then we had a decade (ongoing) of unpleasant at best of making the best of a bad situation. The scope of the problem made the debate important as is true in regard to supporting Democrats that support some sanity and good policies. It is fine to criticize them and their leader (Obama) as too mainstream and even malignant in various ways (see Glenn Greenwald), but ignoring that the two sides are not the same (if too similar) is also important. I fear that GG et. al. don't really recognize this at times.
I don't have that much faith (or whatever) that things will go that well over the next few years, especially since the election will be sold not a message to do things better but to do less (or more Republican), but Democrats should stick to their values, compromise less since that is what a minority power in the House should do (the Republicans just took that too far) and show themselves as credible leaders who should be trusted with power. If you think as Greenwald today said that the Republicans are really only "slightly less bad" (really? McCain/Palin would only be "slightly less bad" than Obama/Biden? seriously? this is the path to VOTING REPUBLICAN, since heck, marginal difference), the results are of the "told you so" variety. But, on some level, I agree. I expected more from the rhetoric, realizing in practice it would be watered down. Dawn Johnsen's defeat continues to be a symbol of that.
But, what is the answer? Alan Grayson feels a major part of his defeat is because his base didn't come out this time. Rachel Maddow put out poll results voters support the Democrats, but actual voters did not. This is a shoot yourself in the foot strategy. Staying home doesn't send the message that needs to be sent. The message sent is the winners are right. This has to be underlined and people like those beyond Gay USA (strong critics of Obama's policies in many cases) et. al. understand. You can be totally pissed off, but the the hell is the value of helping Republicans get into power? Primary challenges makes sense. If there was a third party option in some of these states, that would make sense. But, the message sent by staying home in general elections, or voting against Russ Feingold, is poisonous in practice. Hopefully, some valid lessons will be reached. Often they will not!
And, since the midterms were not too surprising (a third less Republicans could have gained seats and still the party would have gained control of the House), it made sense for the Democrats to use the time they had to get stuff done. Even if the critics are right that more should have been done. Some of the complaints are clearly b.s. anyways, including in regard to economic policies the Republicans supported or would have if they were in power at the time. Romneycare also was supported by a majority or a majority either supported it or wanted more. Some of the remainder didn't really know what was in it. Not a bad record of accomplishments, especially if DADT is actually overturned. Overall, taking into consideration the imperfections of governing, the Democrats simply did not do that bad of a job all things considered.
So, you try to be philosophical and not overcompensate. We shall see how it goes.
---
* Since his election was so close, there can be various arguments made regarding why he lost. I just read one person noting that his competitor benefited on the spending front, a lot of the money coming from outside the state. This was not a rarity. The Iowa Supreme Court anti-gay recall election was greatly funded that way. This underlines the importance of some sort of campaign finance reform law or addressing it overall, such as some form of the Disclose Act among other things. Such things, not just "Obama is a loser" should be addressed. Will they be?