Okay, I got your attention. And actually, the title about sums up my perspective on the election. But there is much more that can and should be said about this miserable outcome, and what lessons it suggests going forward. Especially based on the tale told by voter turnout and the exit polls across the nation.
Here is an excellent diary by Jon Perr about the tale of the turnout.
As usual, the midterm electorate was older, whiter, and more conservative than the presidential electorate. That's a big strike against Democrats at the start, even before we consider anything like voter intensity or issues of concern. But this year also saw a turnout of only 36.6% of eligible voters - perhaps a record low. By comparison, turnout in 2012 for President Obama's reelection was 58%. That drop of over 20% in voter turnout equates to over 40 million people of the 200-million-plus eligible voters in the U.S. 40 million younger, more diverse, more liberal voters than those who showed up Tuesday. How many Senate seats would that have saved for the Democrats or cost the Republicans? How many in the House? How many governorships and state legislatures? Even matching the 41% turnout in the 2010 midterm election, a fairer comparison, would have meant almost 9 or 10 million more voters. When more people vote, more Democrats win. It's as simple as that.
Now lets consider the exit polls, which you can examine in detail at NBC or CNN .
There's no doubt the anti-Obama sentiment was more widespread than the support: 33% reported that expressing opposition to Obama was a factor in the House vote (which obviously means it was one in the states with Senate votes as well) while only 19% reported that supporting President Obama was a factor. 59% reported being dissatisfied or angry with the Administration, and only 39% satisfied or enthusiastic.
The disapproval and distrust of "the government" was on clear display as well. 79% said you can trust the government to do the right thing only 'sometimes' or 'never.' 54% thought the government was trying to do too much. 65% agreed that the country is 'seriously off on the wrong track.' 78% were very of somewhat worried about the direction of the economy in the next year. So what we have here is the Fox news demographic - extremely distrustful of the government, enraged at the President, and convinced that everything is going to Hell in a handbasket. And as you are probably, aware, there are now repeated studies showing that the overwhelmingly conservative Fox news viewers are more ignorant or misinformed about what's happening in the world than are those who rely on other news sources.
Interestingly, though, there was little love for the Republicans either. 59% had negative feelings about Republican leaders in Congress; view of the Republican Party were just as negative (54%0 as those of the Democratic Party (55%); and disapproval of Congress was much higher than disapproval of the President (78% vs. 55%).
So why the sweeping Republican victories? A big part of this must be voter intensity; more Republicans and conservatives simply showed up, and as disappointed as they might be with Republicans, they hate and fear President Obama - and liberals and Democrats in general - even more. Perr's diary documents this greater intensity of feeling by Republican voters. At the risk of oversimplification: This year's elections were dominated by angry older conservatives, eager to poke the President in the eye.
Are there lessons here? Certainly there are.
(1) Don't run uninspiring candidates. How did Democrats manage to lose gubernatorial races in Maryland and Massachusetts, states overwhelmingly Democratic among registered voters? Quite simply: the angry Republicans turned out, and the complacent or dissatisfied Democrats didn't. Brown may have had an inspiring personal story, but he simply did not have any major accomplishments as lieutenant governor - and the main project he had been assigned by Governor O'Malley was leading the rollout of Maryland's health exchange, which was a badly botched fiasco. As for Coakley in Massachusetts - well, let's just hope Massachusetts Democrats have learned their lesson, and will never, ever, nominate her for any statewide office ever again.
(2) Don't engage in political cronyism. I also believe that Democratic voters (correctly) perceive political cronyism when some of these uninspiring candidates make their way onto the ballot. Don't nominate candidates because 'it's their turn' or 'they've paid their dues.' Nominate candidates that have shown themselves to be effective campaigners and effective advocates and champions of liberal values. Speaking of which...
(3) Embrace the fact that Democrats are the party of shared prosperity. Economic populism works - especially when millions suffer lingering financial hardships from the Great Recession. And even the more conservative midterm electorate agreed with liberal positions on economic issues: most agreed with raising the minimum wage and most believed that upper-income people and corporations are paying too little in taxes (see the Perr diary). Even conservatives like having health insurance: most midterm voters agreed that 'Congress should improve Obamacare but not replace it.' They didn't vote in favor of repeal efforts (although that's what they'll get). Why do you think Mitch McConnell spent so much time pretending he could repeal Obamacare, but Kentucky could keep Kynect, its Obamacare exchange?
(4) Embrace liberalism. On many social issues, the progressive view has already won. In the exit polls for this whiter-older-more conservative electorate, gay marriage, legalized marijuana, and legal abortion all had at least as many supporters as opponents. A majority (57%) favored a path to legal status for illegal immigrants. Hell, the same 57% majority even agreed that global warming is a serious problem, a fact that is rabidly rejected by the Tea partiers and other wing-nuts of the right. Democrats simply seem wishy-washy, spineless, or dishonest to the voters when they downplay or avoid these issues. And why should Democratic constituencies turn out to vote when their candidates fail to motivate or inspire as champions of what should be core Democratic values? (see #1, above).
(5) Figure out what kinds of messages and tactics can motivate the Democratic base to turn out in midterm elections. Seriously. I don't have any easy answer for this, because if I did, the Democratic campaign professionals would too. (1) through (4) above are part of it, but obviously there were some Democrats this cycle who spoke out clearly and repeatedly for core liberal values and lost anyway, and I do not want to deny or minimize that. How do we get the younger voters, the non-White voters, the single voters, to show up in greater numbers when the Presidency is not at stake?
(6) Fight Republican voter suppression - particularly the dishonest and discriminatory 'Voter ID' laws at every turn - in state legislatures, in courts, everywhere. Part of the losses were just unfavorable terrain - with so many seats to defend in so many red states, it was always clear that seats were likely to be lost. But some of those losses did not have to occur. As noted above, when more people vote, more Democrats win. Republicans knew that, and understood that the Voter ID scam would help immensely in the face of their demographic disadvantages.
2016 holds the promise of winning the Presidency again, and taking back a great many seats in the House and Senate, as millions of missing Democrats turn up to vote in a Presidential election year. But 2018 will see the pendulum swing back the other way yet again, unless the Democratic party can embrace the values that led them to champion labor, civil rights, and gay rights: the values of shared prosperity and respect for diversity. The messages built from those core values are what motivates more of our core constituency. Combined with candidates that can credibly champion those values, 2018 - and beyond - can be very different from these midterms.