You probably couldn't tell from all the "oh my god the democratic party is dead!" threads, that a majority, indeed nearly 60%, of Democratic Senators either voted against cloture or abstained.
So, who were the senators who voted for cloture:
Akaka (HI - blue)
Cantwell (WA - blue)
Carper (DE - blue)
Inouye (HI - blue)
Kohl (WI - blue)
Lieberman (CT - blue)
Baucus (MT - red)
Bingaman (NM - red)
Byrd (WV - red)
Conrad (ND - red)
Dorgan (ND - red)
Johnson (SD - red)
Landrieu (LA - red)
Lincoln (AR - red)
Nelson, Ben (NE - red)
Nelson, Bill (FL - red)
Pryor (AR - red)
Rockefeller (WV - red)
Salazar (CO - red)
As you can see, out of the 19 Senators who voted against cloture,
13 are from red states, where their constituents may indeed
wanted them to vote against a filibuster (remember, they ultimately serve their state, not necessarily the US in general or the party)
However, that isn't the main point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that the Democratic party didn't "fail" because 26 Senators couldn't put 18 of their fellow Senators into a headlock until they voted their way.
Remember, however, that all 8 democrats in the judiciary committee voted against Alito. We look like we're going to get about 90% of democratic senators to vote against Alito in the actual vote.
The point being that kos is right - a majority is the most important thing. If Democrats were in the majority, there would have been no filibuster because Alito would never have survived the vote in the judiciary committee.
After all, thats were most of the bad bills in congress are supposed to be stopped: in committee.
The leaders of the party - Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. all voted in favor of a filibuster. It is not the leadership of the party that is the problem.
The problem is that there are no less than 4 Republican senators in New England...plus Jeffords and Lieberman.
The problem is that southern democrats (outside of Arkansas) are nearly extinct in the Senate. The problem is that many swing states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc) are dominated by Republican senators.
So...the question becomes...what do we do about this?
One thing that may cause distress to many people here is that it is just geographically impossible to have 50 Ted Kennedys in the Senate. It just can't happen. There aren't 25 states liberal enough to elect Ted Kennedys or Russ Feingolds to the Senate.
So, concessions must be made where they must be made. That means accepting perhaps less than appealing candidates in the south and great plains so that they can vote for Reid, who can control what bills come to the Senate floor by committee assignments.
However, that also means targeting any and all republicans who represent blue or "battleground" states. Again, this may mean candidates more conservative than some people's tastes on here, but that is unavoidable.
I see quite a few people saying they wont vote democratic again, or wont give money to democrats. I have this to say to them: third parties wont work. Liberals migrating away from the democratic party will only make the party more conservative. Then you really will only have a choice between GOP and GOP-lite.
Majorities matter. Caucuses can be held together much easier with the power of the majority...and of the purse. The power to control committees and the schedule come with the majority. And of course, a margin of error as kos points out.
Failing to filibuster Alito is disappointing, for sure. however, people shouldn't prematurely print the obituary for the republic.