How about those elections, huh?

I'll give the run-down to Maher:



We dodged many bullets, but there are so many we did not. Rand Paul will be a Senator from Kentucky--but then again, he is replacing Jim Bunning, who wasn't so tightly wrapped himself. Also, the curtain hasn't exactly descended on Joe Miller just yet, even though I suspect it will.

What does it all mean? Is it Obama's fault? Pelosi's?

How about--the messaging problem with the Democratic Party is endemic and affects both media presence and campaigning, and also--maybe we needed more oomph! I was a "hope and change girl"--but I'm old enough to know better. I attended my polling place knowing I would be casting a meaningless vote for my Congresscritter (Patrick Murphy--who lost to Mike Fitzpatrick), my Senator (I wanted Sestak, but the ineffebly effed-up Club for Growth candidate Toomey won) and the Governor I wanted (Dan Onorato, who seemed sincerely like a guy who wouldn't suck, but now my state will be run by Tom Corbett, who I really think will.) Why did the people who I thought would suck win?

I think it's because Dems can't articulate pride in what we have accomplished and demonstrate how it affects people's day to day lives--even though that's the important part and why we have the policy preferences we have. The campaign money isn't so much on our side, but I'd rather blame humility or liberal reticence to display any will to power. Me--I wish we talked bigger. I think we should have taken advantage of our majority to do votes that sent a message. The GOP blocked a bill that had an impact on US jobs--yet they got voted in because of high unemployment?

We should have fucked them in the media for it--these shits sided with outsourcers! But we failed to bring it across as a real thing people needed to confront. It still is, though. The corporations will still be outsourcing. And our workers will continue to be fucked. So maybe next cycle we can run on that, huh?

But yay--it looks like so many of the worst are put down--O'Donnell, Angle, um, but still, West? Paul? We still allowed crazies in our government. It isnt so much of a success that the ones who got in weren't the craziest, or the worst--although I'd like to believe they will be so fail as to be genuinely self-term-limiting. But it would have been more satisfying for me if all the crazies got rejected for the political gimmicks their campaigns were. As it is, some real tea-heads are going to be in our House. I hope their terms are so very "one and done". I feel disillusioned by the electorate, but I still think Democrats can make some positive change--

For one thing, the Blue dog coalition is busted--and I was never a fan. I want us to pull left. Seriously. I don't care how dumb anyone finds that after a right-ward skewing vote--pull left. Because it's the only way our moderates look centrist enough. Because it's the only way we get good guys like Alan Grayson (who I just love) back. Because this game is tug of war and we don't win unless we are tugging. Because we have important things to introduce about social justice and human rights that won't get a voice unless we vocalize them, and because the other side is wrong. We don't want to skew towards wrong--if you think you are right: show it!

Anyway, that's my message. I don't blame Pelosi or Obama ultimately, since they have been used by the opposition to represent what it is they don't like, which doesn't need to mean squat to me. I like them both, and I will like them both, long after this election season is just a stain in my rear view. I'd have liked them to be more vocal, but I suspect they hedged on purpose, to lower expectations in line with results--I'd like to think they could have pumped those results up with more unity and enthusiasm-but I know my liberal people. We just don't fall in line. And they'd rather not try if it meant fail, and being associated with failure. Which I think means we lefties need better infrastructure, since we don't hew to message-conformity. But I think we'd do better if we did--a little.