Score this far, Republicans have 53 seats.

[Savannahmann]

With Alaska falling to the Republicans too, the score is now 53 Republicans, with one contested.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-dan-sullivan-beats-sen-mark-begich-win-alaska-race-n246721

So when can we discuss the mistakes we made, before or after we lose Louisiana in the runoff? I only ask because as we turn towards the 2016 Presidential, we really need to have an honest assessment of what happened without the propaganda spin.

[lonestarnot]

1. Get ready to pay pay pay, in every way way way.

[vi5]

2. The Onion headline said it best the day after the election..

"REPUBLICANS RETAIN CONTROL OF SENATE"

It's satire, obviously but that to me points to the bigger problem than just losing the election. Is how with control of the Senate for so long did our side manage to govern so poorly. Hell, and even forget the fillibuster aspect of it for a minute, how did Bush manage to get so many of his things through with a Democratic senate?

It's not just that we campaign poorly, it's that we govern poorly as well and until we show people that's not the case we will continue to go through this cycle.

[stillwaiting]

3. Republicans had complete control of Congress most of the time during the Bush Presidency.

From June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 Dems. had 50 Senators, Repubs. 49, and Jeffords became an independent.

That's hardly strong control though with how many Conservadems we continue to have within the Dem. Party that enable very conservative legislation to pass.

Then we have:

110th Congress (2007-2009)
Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat (both caucus with the Democrats)
Total Seats: 100
Note:Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.

That really didn't provide Democratic control (to pursue party ideas) with the quality of "Democrats" we had within the Senate Democratic Caucus (even though we regained the House during this period for a whole four years). The Senate is our bigger problem by far in my opinion.

Bush got pretty much everything he wanted during his entire Presidency.

We didn't really have a strongly Democratic Senate at any point during the Bush Administration.

At this point though I think we would need 120 Democratic Senators (yes, I know) in order for legislation to be passed that represents the Democratic Party platform and values.

Radical overhaul within the Democratic Party is needed now.

Radical.

[vi5]

4. The point is...

How many Democratic Senators did Bush have when he was leading?

How many Republican Senators did Obama have when he was leading?

The difference in numbers is not great. The difference in level of aggression, strength of leadership, and inter-party discipline.

[rurallib]

5. Might be more accurate to say the Kochs have 53 senators

and the other 320,000,000 of us have maybe 5.

Just sayin'.