Replies

I don't believe the anger has subsided at all. I think the GOP just didn't know what to do with it.

I think there's a point there. In 2008, Obama was gold to the Democrats downballot. I think the Dems picked up in the neighborhood of 20 House seats. This time, they may get seven, but that's entirely due to redistricting in California that yielded more marginal seats, some of which were already weakening for us, plus a blatant Dem gerrymander in Illinois that sadly wiped out some good people. But Obama's coal policies pretty much ended the congressional careers of Ben Chandler and Mark Critz and gave Nick Rahall a tougher race this time than in 10. We also went all-GOP in OK and AR. Many races that Dems contested in 08 went untouched this time. Some of our defeats like Canseco and Rivera were due to self-inflicted wounds. And of course, the Senate races were botched due to stupidly run races instead of a Democrat headwind.

We've still got the same people in charge and serving that did when we lost the Congress in 2006. Those folks have got to be replaced with forward-thinking individuals who can inspire the base and reach out to other disaffected persons. Millions didn't bother to show up in this election that might've voted for us had the party done a better job. This was inexcusable. But make no mistake, it was no victory for the left, either. If the numbers are correct at present, it will show Zero did not even get 50% of the vote. That is as sweeping a mandate as Clinton had in 1996, but with a difference... he got a higher % than his first race, Zero went the opposite way. Not since FDR in 1940 and 1944 has an incumbent President received a lower % in their successive election.

And those were FDR's third and fourth terms. No president that got elected and got re-elected did so with a lower popular vote percentage since Andrew Jackson, and he had a major third-party candidate getting 6 percent of the vote.

If the GOP can get its act together, given the likelihood for an economic meltdown, there should be quite a number of targets for us in 2014. I haven’t crunched all the numbers yet, but virtually any Dem House member either sitting in a GOP-carried Presidential district and those who won within 10% are at risk.

NY, for example, under the new lines, 14 out of the 27 districts are winnable for us. A far better situation (as a percentage of the delegation, at least) than in neighboring MA. As with 2008, we’re back to having zero Republicans from New England (as it was, we had just the 2 in NH), and frankly, I think it was very fortunate that we dodged having the homosexual activist Socialist Tisei as the lone face of the New England House GOP. That would’ve been a disaster.

We need to zero in on those winnable districts as soon as we have the final numbers to know which to target and start to actively recruit and finance credible challengers. Many of those that ran this year might be suitable for a rematch, others not so much, but we have to get busy now and not let Tuesday’s setback deter us.