I sincerely doubt anything I say will be of any novelty, as they either have been repeated ad nausaeum already or will soon be. Nor do I expect to add any unique insight. Rather these are just the ramblings of an IL voter who has had some to drink, but hopefully some may come out of this.
I am not so much disappointed in the results because it's a loss for the party, but rather disappointed because I actually love my country and am sad to know that it will unlikely recover any time soon because we brought back to power the party that got us into this mess, refused to help get us out, and seems intent on making the mess worse. With the debt skyrocketing thanks to useless tax cuts and 2 useless wars on top of an extremely oversized military that we've had since WWII, the economy improving but job numbers not, it's a sad day for the United States. People are desperate and despondent, but sadly in their well intentions they shall reap their just desserts.
So first in IL. Seems like we lost a fair amount of house seats. Many of them appear to be in places picked up during the Bush years so they probably were going to go. Apparently IL is quite red outside of Cook County for the most part (not that I am surprised, just my observations). Kirk has been declared victor, so we shall once again have a mixed representation in the US Senate along with Durbin. Disappointing to say the least, but that Senate seat has historically switched hands quite a bit anyway. Maybe better luck in 2016, and maybe Kirk will work with our Durbin to help improve things in IL (though I'd be a damn fool to hold my breath on this). On the plus side, the Gov. race isn't the rout expected. Quinn's got a small lead with most the votes in. Too close to call but looks like he will squeak by as the victor, as most the precincts still to come in seem like they shall cancel each other out fairly well. I just wish it was clear who reported, as one county gives 13% for Governor and 100% for Senator despite comparable number of votes. Then again, I know little about how precinct reporting works, so take what you will. But the fact that Quinn hasn't had to concede yet despite taking over for Blagojevich and in this climate--regardless of the final outcome--is proof that not all hope is lost for us. Hard to find numbers on other state offices but as far as the cabinet goes there's less controversy there and most the incumbents are well known and relatively popular, so we won't likely give up the entire executive branch at least.
As for the rest of the country, I have to say I have mixed results relative to my expectations. Call it naivete but I didn't think we'd lose ~60 House seats. Well here's to 2 years of a Boehner-led clusterfuck. Senate looks a little better than expected. Reid despite his best efforts managed to hold on (I guess Angle was just too much), but I fault him only minimally for the lack of worthwhile legislative victories (though much more than I fault Pelosi). Nervous about Washington. Very disappointed in Wisconsin (Feingold may not have been the most liberal but damn them for getting rid of who amounts to one of the few senators none can claim to be dishonest). Otherwise, most went down just about as expected. Governor races I won't comment on (though seems we could have done a lot worse).
So now we come to the issue of what does this all mean? Well honestly I really don't care what the punditry has to say since it's all pulled out of their asses and is made to maximize drama, from all sides but especially with the MSM. What I can say is that maybe this will be a much-needed wake-up call for Democrats.
Let's be frank, the only reason we got as many in office as we did was because Bush was so toxic in 2006/2008 (despite somehow managing to win again in 2004). Half the seats we picked up were seats that would have been picked up only under such circumstances. But what about the others? We lost Senate seats in relatively Blue states (the most painful being Mass. in the special election, a seat that there were zero excuses for losing). What we lost we did for two reasons: independents went red, and many Democrats stayed home when Republicans marched to the polls. Clear and simple as that: we couldn't campaign to save ourselves when recent memory should have wiped out the GOP as any serious party.
And that's what stings most. What was the GOP platform? Insanity and obstruction. They offered what as a solution? NOT A FUCKING THING! How do you lose to a non-campaign? By not campaigning yourself. I won't clutch pearls and say we could have saved every seat if Obama/Reid/whoever did more of whatever, because it's not true. But we lost a LOT of unnecessary seats because we didn't give people a reason to vote.
Look at the polls. Most don't think they got a tax break (most did), most think TARP was a failure (made a profit), most thing the stimulus was a failure (was a success but too small and too tax-break filled to have a bigger effect), most think HCR was a failure (did more good than bad, despite it being little of what we wanted), think the economy is sinking (it's grown every quarter for over a year; though unemployment is very high, it's a very complicated issue when companies refuse to hire despite making higher profits). Now despite a lot of disappointment in what amounts to pet issues in most voters' minds, where it counts most we should be able to scream victory (if however small, but given where we were this is big). Why didn't it? Citizens United helped muck up voter understanding on these things, especially when billionaires can spend millions lying anonymously. Even still, where was the touting of our successes? Why did Democrats refuse to acknowledge their victories? Why did they run away from the few successes they could muster with an insane and obstructionist GOP and instead decide the way to voter hearts was to want to be Republican-lite? Why discourage your base and make independents think you're ineffectual and no different than the true--albeit crazed--article?
Many many Blue Dogs lost their seats. They may have only been about half of our defeats (leaving party loyals in the dust) but they were more than half of the reasons we were less effective and their numbers were decimated. I am not against having more conservative Dems in areas where they are quite Red, but when acting like a Republican where it mattered (looking at especially those like Sen. Lincoln who got routed in Arkansas) does little to help the people who matter--the voters--and little to help your party. Hopefully with less Blue Dog influence someone in a power position within the party will stand up and realize: maybe when you actually stand up for what you believe in, when you give voters a reason to want to vote for you, then people WILL vote for you. It won't always work obviously, and numbers will always cycle with current events, but I guarantee you that if actually living up to your party's ideals and working FOR the people that elected then you will cut unnecessary and idiotic losses to near 0%.
Edit: I admittedly say little about social issues and possibly unfairly compared them with "pet issues". I say little on the matter because in this election, people honestly cared little about less personal matters when they're worried about their jobs/houses/etc. I don't think our stances on abortion or DADT to name a few are "pet issues"; I think they are indeed important for our society on its own. Electorally, while they won't bring many independents to the polls, they help GIVE YOUR OWN PARTY A REASON TO GET UP AND VOTE
Or at least you'll stop losing to people that refuse to offer real solutions. Just a thought. And now I'm spent.