Charles P. Pierce sums up last night succinctly.

[WilliamPitt]

Let us dispense with some conventional wisdom before it petrifies. First of all, the president's basic unpopularity was unquestionably a factor, but not anywhere near as much of a factor as was the reluctance of the Democratic party -- from the president on down -- to embrace the actual successes that the administration has achieved. The economy is, in fact, improving. It is the responsibility of the president and his party that we have the paradoxical polling that indicates that the elements of the Affordable Care Act are popular, while "Obamacare" is not. (Mitch McConnell told a transparent lie that Kentucky could get rid of the ACA and still keep its very popular state exchange. He didn't suffer at all for that.) The senatorial candidates who lost were senators who ran away from the administration. Alison Lundergan Grimes wouldn't say if she'd voted for the president. Kay Hagan endorsed the Keystone XL pipeline. Michelle Nunn practically ran as an independent. How much worse could it possibly have been for all of them had they stood by the president and his record? How much worse could it possibly have been for them had the president come to campaign for them?

Second, it was a great night for voter-suppression, which has been central to the Republican response to the fact that the president has been elected twice. Kris Kobach, the architect of the strategy, was re-elected as Secretary of State in Kansas, and Jon Husted won the same office in Ohio, over Democratic candidate Nina Turner, on an election that was a referendum on Husted's voter-suppression tactics in that state. Thom Tillis, who piloted North Carolina's incredibly stringent voter-suppression law through the state legislature, is going to the Senate, and Scott Walker, who oversaw the same kind of effort in Wisconsin, is going back to his day job, running the state into the ground and dodging subpoenas, until it's time for him to run for president. It's going to take days to sort out the overall effect of these laws on the general electorate, even if anyone cares to do so, which I've come to doubt, because the Supreme Court created a new normal when John Roberts gutted the Voting Rights Act and declared the day of jubilee, and the people in the country who are not those inconvenienced by these laws, and who are not those against whose franchise these laws were directly aimed, seem perfectly content with this situation.

Last, and I hate to break this to Tom Brokaw, and to Kasie Hunt, who talked about how the Republicans know they have to "govern," but this election couldn't have been less of a repudiation of the Tea Party. As the cable shows signed off last night, it was dawning even on the most conventional pundits that the Republicans had not elected an escadrille of Republican archangels to descend upon Capitol Hill. It was more like a murder of angry crows. Joni Ernst is not a moderate. David Perdue is not a moderate. Thom Tillis is not a moderate. Cory Gardner -- who spiced up his victory by calling himself "the tip of the spear" -- is not a moderate. Tom Cotton is not a moderate. And these were the people who flipped the Senate to the Republicans. In the reliably Republican states, Ben Sasse in Nebraska is not a moderate. James Lankford in Oklahoma is not a moderate. He's a red-haired fanatic who believes that welfare causes school shootings. Several of these people -- most notably, Sasse and Ernst -- won Republican primaries specifically as Tea Partiers, defeating establishment candidates. The Republicans did not defeat the Tea Party. The Tea Party's ideas animated what happened on Tuesday night. What the Republicans managed to do was to teach the Tea Party to wear shoes, mind its language, and use the proper knife while amputating the social safety net. They did nothing except send the Tea Party to finishing school.

The rest: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Election_Night_2014

[bullwinkle428]

1. Should be required reading for all at DU.

K&R.

[Mass]

3. +1

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Yes, indeed.

[Paladin]

4. Jesus. Charlie's last four sentences nail it, perfectly and painfully.

How many of my fellow Democrats still believe that good manners and electoral propriety count for anything, anymore? Time to wake the fuck up and completely reorganize our party, from top to bottom. The domestic war has been on for some time, folks; way past time for us to recognize that fact and actually do something effective to win it.

[myrna minx]

5. K&R nt

[kelliekat44]

6. Running away from the successes of the party only makes 2016 more difficult for Dems. nt

[modestybl]

7. Mostly agree, except that the economy isn't doing well for most people...

Bailed out the banks, but the millions that lost their homes and have never recovered are not a big priority with this administration.

[kelliekat44]

11. But thousands who lost their homes have recouped. Millions could not be made whole in just 6 years.

part-time work is better than no work and had helped my daughter keep her family together until she finally got a permanent full time job which she has done thanks to a slowly but recovering economy. When unemployment was cut off things were pretty grim but jobs began to open up shortly thereafter.

[olegramps]

44. I can't respectfully disagree more.

Every attempt by Obama for major legislation to rebuild the nations crumbling infrastructure has been killed by the Republicans. The same for the minimum wage that would pump billions into the economy that the Republicans oppose to appease their corporate masters. Just these two measures would have been a boon to working class folks and for this reason the Republicans opposed them since it would have made Obama a hero. What is the Republican's cure for the failing economy? The Keystone Pipe Line that they claim will provide thousands of jobs. The fact is that the construction jobs will be short lived with only a handful of permanent jobs. Its the classic ruse by the Republicans to sell a project that is solely beneficial to the Big Oil.

I won't waste your time repeating the achievements of this administration against a racist pack of corporate boot-licking Republican Neanderthals lead by Cruz and has been aided by MSM propaganda machine. Unfortunately, the spineless Democratic candidates chose to run away from Obama and the very principles of the Party and were crushed. They ended up not only losing the elections, but more importantly they revealed that they are without principle and fortitude to stand up for the American working class. Maybe, just maybe, the working class Democrats will drum these Third Way impost0rs out of the party and nominate FDR Democrats.

[Liberal In Red State]

8. What scares me more is that . . . Had the Democrates championed the successes of the President's

Agend - we could have hounded the base to get out the vote to but the dagger in the heart of the far right movement last night. Instead, we have nothing to look forward to in 2016. HRC will not get the vote out of the minority communities that Obama was able to mobilize - and with the house and senate in the control of the GOP - we will see a Supreme Court staked with Scalias. Last night has ramifications that will extend far beyond 2016. Obama can veto all the legislation he wants - but he will never get a liberal on the court and the liberals currently on the court are aging! I know if the liberals vote . . . We win by sheer numbers alone. With the government in the hands of the GOP they will continue waging a war on voting rights through voter ID laws and gerrymandering districts to legislate a statistical majority for their own survival. Last night was critical to show we have put the GOP in the closet, locked the door and thrown away the key! I am beyond depressed!

[DeSwiss]

9. ''...it was a great night for voter-suppression....''

- And an even greater night for voter-fatigue.

[staggerleem]

10. Pierce used the appropriate collective noun for crows ...

... which is "a murder" (a murder of crows, a gaggle of geese, a brace of bucks, etc). My own favorite collective noun is the one that is used for baboons - a CONGRESS of baboons - which it appears is what we'll be saddled with for the next 2 years.

[Enthusiast]

16. "CONGRESS of baboons." Precisely.

[hifiguy]

18. Groucho comes to mind

Groucho/Rufus T. Firefly:

Maybe you can suggest something; As a matter of fact, you do suggest something. To me you suggest a baboon.

Sylvanian Ambassador:

WHAT??!?!?

Groucho:

I'm sorry I said that. It isn't fair to the rest of the baboons.

[Enthusiast]

20. That is classic.

[Skittles]

29. hey check this out

CONGRESS of salamanders! Welcome to DU, staggerleem!

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/hundreds-of-salamanders-gather-on-homeowners-doorstep.html

[Mr. Mustard]

12. Half True, but Deeper Problems IMO

If many Americans don't know that the economy is improving, and can't understand or don't know about the crash of 2008 along with "victim" Kentuckians who are angry because they can't burn coal at will anymore then we won't get through to them.

Fear and prejudice will, when they're told its not their fault and if government would just leave them alone their lives will be better.

Don't you see, if they can't grasp those obvious facts or refuse to grasp them because it hampers their lifestyles and beliefs then nothing, nothing will change their minds.

Not a rising stock market, health care, improving economy, structural changes to combat climate change - nothing.

I disagree with the premise that if Dems marketed themselves better, or lauded their accomplishments those Americans would have voted Dems. The very fact that they don't care, know or believe facts and the very real risk of climate change etc. in my opinion says they will not change at all. Spice that in with religious dogma that says the end of the world will reward them and poof, you have an animal incapable of controlling the industries they have unleashed on this world.

Also, the meme that Republicans are dying out is not true as well. Without enforcing Sherman anti-trust laws, the removal of the Fairness Doctrine, and dark money due to Citizens United, the younger versions of small humans, if you will are easily hooked. "It's not their fault" you see. Been done throughout the ages and is being done again in America by the oligarchs.

Frankly, if the oligarchs themselves who are supposedly the clever ones, don't care about climate change and understand that the middle class will exist somewhat because of government programs (which are good things, just abused by the oligarchs) then no matter how many calls we make yada, yada we'll always be fighting against the rubes and psychopaths with lots of money.

So what to do?

All the things said, yes do them but I am afraid it will take a very serious crisis and or conflict to change the culture enough where reason and self preservation persevere over money and selfishness.

Sorry, but I will vote for progressives, but I won't give money or time anymore. Not while Dems perpetuate money in politics.

I fear it's a losers game, where I support supposed leaders who then seem to succumb or are simply to weak to overcome the power structure.

Lastly, for what it's worth - as long as white European capitalists sincerely believe they're victims we're in for a battle of biblical proportions.

[cilla4progress]

26. Mr. Mustard, sadly,

I must agree.

I guess, "bring it on?".

[upaloopa]

28. If Dems marketed themselves better we might have

picked up more votes than we did. Sure you won't get everyone but maybe enough. The other thing sure as hell didn't work.

[KingCharlemagne]

13. Excellent column and thanks for posting. Every time I think I might have something

of worth to contribute, along comes Mr. Pierce to give articulate expression to thoughts still inchoate in my head and voice to my own sentiments, such that I feel often as if he is writing personal letters to me. Between Pierce and Chris Hedges, I find most of my views articulated and supported.

This really is a wonderful piece.

[MaggieD]

14. Yep, plus one more thing

So-called Dems that either did not come out to vote because Obama is not liberal enough for them, AND ratfuckers that dissed Democrats and Obama non-stop for the last two years, depressing turnout, because Obama is not liberal enough for them.

We are our own worst enemy. It's a Dem tradition. A bad one, but a tradition.

[BrotherIvan]

25. So punching to the left is your strategy?

Scolding and blaming liberals because they don't support Republican-lite is ridiculously stupid. Liberals vote, much more reliably than any other portion of the party. How about you point your finger at the real problem: conservative leadership within the Democratic Party and Democrats who try to pretend like they're not Democrats. Liberal policies win races. We know this because Obama campaigns as a liberal and wins, even in red states. And I think that independents don't like candidates who seem "two-faced" or who seem to be trying something just for the campaign.

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

See this thread for more discussion http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025769753

[baldguy]

39. Simply pointing out "the left" as you call it is punching themselves.

And that's not all of the left, by any means. Most of us are rational adults who can read & follow a map. We're not the whining crybabies who can't understand why haven't we arrived at Disneyland yet!, while they let the screaming hordes of orcs from the GOP carry the car away.

[MaggieD]

49. Exactly - thanks

[BillZBubb]

32. BS

It's funny that the centrist Democratic candidates were the ones running away from Obama, not the more liberal ones. Your post is crap.

[MaggieD]

50. I am in NO WAY a centrist

I am as liberal as they come, but I am a democrat and a realist. I have worked on actual issues like LGBT equality, and I have seen first hand -- up close and personal -- how the purists screw the party. I wish they would stop.

[frylock]

33. yeah, 2010 called..

awhhh fuck it.

[baldguy]

38. +1000

[Enthusiast]

15. Kicked and recommended!

Charles P. Pierce is right on.

[hifiguy]

17. As usual, Pierce smacks it out of the park and into the next county.

And every one of those Repuke loons will be characterized as a "moderate" by the M$M.

The Democrats are currently like the Polish Army of 1939 fighting the Wehrmacht - out spent and outgunned by the forces of evil and propaganda. So what next?

[tblue37]

19. A simple truth: pusillanimity appeals to NO ONE. It even repulses those on

a candidate's side, and it certainly does not recruit new people to vote for the candidate.

Dem candidate and Dem politicians are for the most part unattractively pusillanimous. They won't even support the most *popular* Democratic position or accomplishment!

[marions ghost]

21. Eh?

http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=pusillanimity

Just say cowardly.

[tblue37]

24. In post #23 below I explain why I chose "pusillanimous" rather than "cowardly." nt

[marions ghost]

47. OK fine

I'm not ADVOCATING anything or trying to change your words

Just translating for those who appreciate clarity. But I see others have extrapolated that into some kind of semantics argument (or see it as an attempt to "dumb down&quot . I'm a writer and editor--I get into words as much as anyone--I should have added more smilies I guess, to appease the pompous pontificators.

Thx for reasonable reply.

[hifiguy]

22. "Pusillanimous pussyfooters" indeed.

Older DUers will get the ironic reference.

[tblue37]

23. I figured the oldies would. Furthermore, the word “pusillanimous” also carries connotations and

nuances that more effectively convey the repugnant quality I am after than would merely saying “cowardly,” as the reply above you suggests I should have done.

Yes, cowardly, for sure. But not just your everyday garden variety of cowardice. The word “pusillanimous” also conveys a sense of overthinking and vacillation, a sort of weak-chinned, weak-willed ehn, ehn, ehn whining and waffling that we just don’t get with a more honest, straightforward, openly acknowledged cowardice.

Howard Dean showed the Democratic leadership the way to victory, but they dissed him and ditched him. I have always wondered why the party honchos, the movers and shakers, didn’t embrace Howard Dean. For some reason, the people with power in our party seemed to despise him back then (and still seem to do so!). He “don’t get no respect” </Rodney Dangerfield> from the Dem leaders, even though the Democratic base general adores him. Of course, the Democratic base also “don’t get not respect” from our party’s leaders, so maybe their disrespect toward the good doctor is just part and parcel of their contempt for us, the party’s base—what Dean so accurately referred to as the “Democratic wing” of the Democratic Party.

Sometimes I suspect that a lot of the Dems, especially those in leadership positions, really don’t want a majority in the House and Senate, because then we would expect them to actually accomplish some of our most important goals. As long as the Republicans hold the majority, or as long as the Dems have only the weakest, most fragile majority, then the Dems who are beholden to the oligarchs don’t have to pass many of the sort of laws that might annoy their masters and thus dry up their campaign contributions—not to mention threatening the elected Dems’ cushy jobs, consulting gigs, and remunerative speaker’s fees after they leave office.

[Agony]

37. post recommended and thread kicked

...that contempt for the Democratic wing lives right here on DU as well...

[BrotherIvan]

27. Pusillanimous and perfidious!

And please, no need to dumb down your post. Anti-intellectualism is for the other side.

[olegramps]

45. Is that you George Will, just kidding you.

[niyad]

30. k and r

[whereisjustice]

31. Democratic Party spent years cultivating corporatism. It has historically paid well. They

aren't going to give that up easily. It's a business.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. Good article. But nothing beats the sheer laziness and whininess of Democratic voters.

They won't vote unless you get them all excited. If candidates don't talk to them like a parent talks to a 2-year old, they won't vote. They have to hear, "Does BABY want something NICE? Go vote!" When are Democratic voters going to grow up and start acting like adults, and stop with the whininess, pickiness and concerning themselves about 1 or another bullshit interest rather than sweeping out Republicans? I'm really sick of Democratic voter whininess and stupidity. I hear idiots going on about ONE issue - if such and such candidate doesn't like that one issue, they won't vote. It's really immature. Democratic voters have become infantile.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. Mr. Fish's Spine

[malaise]

36. Must read

Rec

[spanone]

40. k&r...

[Overseas]

41. K&R. Well said.

[WillyT]

42. K & R !!!

[stage left]

43. K&R nt

[kentuck]

46. yep

Tea Party is now wearing shoes.

[lindysalsagal]

51. Mid terms always counter the pres.,and young/minority voters don't turn out. Simple.

It's more about who showed up than what the politicians said.

I think too much credit is given to the american voter: They don't know what's going on or what their candidate stands for or even how that would effect them and their families.

Certain people will always vote GOP and those are the ones who showed up. Also, never discount the negative gotv effect when a black person is potus. That's why I'm not excited about HRC, either: She'll bring a huge GOP anti-vote.

There's also this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025772103