I noticed a little something on Daily Kos and Democracy Now that the rest of the media hasn't caught onto yet.

It seems that the Democrats that lost in the House were primarily blue dogs.

In other words, Progressive Democrats faired far better than moderate Dems, while extremist Tea Party candidates didn't fair very well at all.

The numbers are quite striking. The blue dogs lost 26 of their 54 seats. Progressives lost a grand total of 3 seats.

One of those seats were Alan Grayson's seat, which the GOP spent heavily to get him out of office. The same is true for Senator Feingold's seat. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party seemed more interested in backing the blue dogs with funds, while leaving progressive to raise their own money.

But what's interesting about this is the unintended consequences of the GOP's wins. With the blue dogs going down in flames, the Progressive Caucas of the Democratic party now has a clear plurality. This could mean big changes in the Democratic leadership, meaning they could take a far bolder approach in the next Congress than the current one.

There's an old saying that goes something like this: Given a choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, people will choose the real thing every time.

-- Modified on 11/8/2010 4:41:44 AM

True about the blue dogs losing seats...Also, the election seemed to follow typical geographic red/blue divides...Democrats did well in the northeast (should win the Vermont and Connencticut governor races to, though i don't think they've been officially called yet) and they did extremely well out west (WA, OR, NV, CA, CO, HI)...They did lousy in the south and rustbelt..(except for IL. governor race and Minnesota where Dayton leads but there may be recount)...

-- Modified on 11/8/2010 4:59:45 AM

"only to lose the seat when the domocrats went socialist"

Socialist? The blue dogs were socialist? You're funny.

"The census will redefine the number of seats lost or won so redistricting lines will be redrawn. This is bad for the democrats as the republicans swept allot of state elections. I suspect it will be unlikely that the democrats will be able to take back congress for at least another ten years now."

The GOP was in control back in 2000 too, and yet the Dems still held Congress from 2006-2010.

Historically, the GOP fairs far better during times of prosperity. During bad economies, not so much. As Mein pointed out, this is the 3rd election in a row where the attitude was kick the bums out, regardless of who the bums were.

I imagine that will continue until someone figures out that they actually have to work to improve the country to stay in office.

Its not difficult to understand why blue dogs lost. They won elections in conservative districts during the democrat sweep only to lose the seat when the domocrats went socialist. The socialist liberal seats are safe havens as the districts are Gerrymandered so it is unlikely they can lose. The same goes for the republicans in conservative districts as well. If you look at some of the districting maps, they are cut up, zig zagged, and divided in absurd ways.  The census will redefine the number of seats lost or won so redistricting lines will be redrawn. This is bad for the democrats as the republicans swept allot of state elections. I suspect it will be unlikely that the democrats will be able to take back congress for at least another ten years now.

You seem to not understand the role geography plays in politics. Next you’ll be telling us Pelosi is planning to run for minority leader, LOL.

You and the remaining Dems should run hard to the left. Yeh, that’s the ticket.

GOP control of the House and Senate means almost nothing when it comes to Congressional redistricting. It’s all about control of the state governments. Depends upon each state but state legislatures and governorships are both important. And the Republicans are now in a stronger position in the states than since the 1920s. There was a shift in over 20 state chambers and governor offices due to over a shift of over 600 individual seats. Add to that the 2010 census and it’s too bad for most Dem districts.

Ok Willy, you just aren't getting it fella. First off, Democrats only fared well in districts that are, have always been, and will always be, the furthest left it is possible to be. The fact that Democrats won in these districts is no surprise at all.

Furthermore, you, along with your liberal cohorts STILL don't get what happened in the elections of '06, '08, and this election cycle. You thought the gains Dems made starting in '04, carrying through in '06, and culminating in '08 were an embrace of your party's politics. It WASN'T. Mainstream America has NEVER embraced liberalism. The last several elections were a repudiation of Republicans who stopped acting like Republicans, who stopped listening to the voters.

Democrats were sent to Washington in '08 to put an end to bloated gov't, massive overspending, and deficites. There was NEVER a mandate to implement all the big gov't schemes slobbered over by your typical Democrat. There was never a mandate to outspend the extravagant excesses of the Republicans. But that is exactly what the Democrats did, and that is why they had their hat handed to them last Tuesday.

If Republican rhetoric is anything to go by in the past week, it appears that the Republicans have finally started to get the message. Democrats however, appear to still be dumb as a box of rocks. Obama keeps explaining that the reason Democrats took a shellacking (love that word), is because he didn't communicate well enough - and oh yeah, not creating jobs gets added in as an afterthought too. Obama doesn't get it. He does indeed have a communication problem. The American people are communicating with him loud and clear, and he just flat isn't listening.

But please, oh please DO take a far bolder approach in the next Congress. Keep pushing your bloated gov't and massive deficit busting initiatives. PLEASE try to pass Cap and Trade, keep the health care bill intact, and go right ahead and take on Entitlements too. The more you push, the more seats Dems will lose in 2012, and the more certain Obama's defeat will be.

...then they'd still be in power. The numbers alone tell you that. This election was lost as soon as Obama decided not to back the public option.

-- Modified on 11/8/2010 7:43:42 PM

Really? How many of those candidates in those districts openly supported gay marriage? The legalization of pot? Cutting the military budget? Raising income taxes on the rich back to 70%? Ending free trade? The voters decided that they'd rather have a real Republican than a fake Republican. The fact that progressives lost a grand total of 3 seats and Tea Party candidates fairly very poorly, dictates that the voters would have preferred a REAL Democrat to either.It wasn't. It was an embrace of the ideas set forth by Barack Obama during the campaign. Ideas that the Democrats, Obama included, have failed to implement.  I think a casual look at US history would tell you different. Republicans haven't acted like Republicans since the days of Barry Goldwater.Democrats were sent to Washington to fix a nation that was nearly destroyed, and nothing more.I'm the last guy to defend the Democratic Party, but Sin, they DIDN'T outspend the Republicans. You're so wrong on this fact alone that it would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.They were handed their asses because voters will always prefer a real Republican to a fake one.It's not. Usually, the opposite is true. You're not wrong.You're not wrong again. Obama was the only person who kept the people and their pitchforks from the bankers. He should have gone after them. I'd suspect that if he had, the Dems would still be in power.Given that 90% of our debt was at Republican hands, I'd have to say that bloated Government is a Republican policy. Do a google of Jude Wanniski's Two Santa Claus Theory of Gov't.None of which are liberal ideas, Sin. Where are the Dems who are saying that we need to tax the rich? That we need to raise taxes on corporations? That we need to cut the intelligence budget? That we need to eliminate Homeland Security? That we need to get rid of the Patriot Act? That we need a modern day Church Committee investigation into CIA abuses? That we need to prosecute the last administration for war crimes? That we need a universal right for workers to form or join a union? That we need to cut the full time work week to 35 hours? That we need federally mandated laws that require all businesses to give their workers days off on holidays, paid sick leave, and longer vacations? Where the Dems who are saying that we need a nation-wide high speed bullet train system? Where are the Dems who are saying we need to raise CAFE standards so that we can compete and sell US made cars to China? Where are the Dems who are in favor of giving low interest loans to US homeowners to put solar panels on their homes, so we can forever eliminate rolling blackouts, eliminating nuclear power plants as a target for terrorists? Where are the Dems who are in favor of de-militarizing our nation's police forces? Where are the Dems who are saying we need to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other outpost we have no reason for being there?

These ideas aren't even presented Sin. They are OFF THE TABLE. Ask yourself why, and why hicks in trailer parks essentially have the same political beliefs as Steve Forbes.

-- Modified on 11/8/2010 8:25:11 PM

END OF MESSAGE