As has been pointed out - candidates matter. In the rush to "punish" the "establishment" the voters in Nevada and Colorado picked more conservative (marginally) individuals with considerable baggage over 90%+ conservatives who probably could have won in a walk. In an alternate universe I don't think we'd be fretting over Colorado (which appears lost) and talking about Sen. Reid, we'd have gone to bed early Tuesday night congratulating Sens.-elect Sue Lowden and Jane Norton.

In some places, it just isn't going to happen - if Carly Fiorina couldn't win in California this year against Barbara Boxer, then it's never going to happen there. If Dino Rossi doesn't pull it out in Washington we should probably write that state off until one of those seats opens up.

Of course, Bennett wins in CO. It's hard to spin the Senate results last night as anything other than a disappointment. This was the GOP's best shot at a true landslide and they blew it, as usual.

If you had told the Dems 3 weeks ago that they could take a 6 seat loss in the Senate or see what happens in the election, I would bet they take that 6 seat loss and smile.

Fish, you have to be delusional. 18 months ago, the Tea Party was a disorganized mass of people on the street. Now they are powerful enough to elect senators, without the help of the establishment parties. And...theyre not going to continue growing in power? Keep dreaming. Six seats flipped, and if you dont think more will in 2012, you are in La La Land.

"Six seats flipped, and if you dont think more will in 2012, you are in La La Land."

You never just give away races, and the GOP did that in NV, DE, and CO. How do you not defeat an incumbent under 50% approval? CA and WA are impossible, I guess, but the other races were extremely winnable. I don't spin. The House results were good, but not off-the-charts great. And the Senate results were so-so at best, disappointing at worst.

I have a feeling that when all the races are done in the House, you'll have 10+ seats that should have been won but weren't. And the Dems got 6 Senate seats in 06 and 8 seats in 08. This was no big deal.

And what happened to Obi-Wan last night? Can NRO get a new "insider", please?

Let's not forget that this was a class of Senators elected in 2004, until last night the last good election for Republicans. The GOP wrung from this class almost all that was possible six years ago. To pick up what it did with these candidates in 2010 is remarkable. Take a look at what awaits in 2012. If this Congress performs, 2012 is set up nicely for seizing the Senate. Stop being gloomy and start working.

@mypalfish

Yeah, I think there are another dozen house seats that we could have taken. But there are some that we may not have taken and did. You have old time D's like Spratt, Taylor, Skelton, etc who survived '94 that were put down for good and their districts are not R's for a long time. Yeah Boxer is a terrible person and a very unpopular senator but it's CA, they brought back Moonbeam. How long before CA is completely bankrupt with a D statehouse and Moonbeam? The public unions own CA and they spend cash bigtime to keep the pensions and no work jobs.

My Gov in MA Deval is unpopular but it's a very D state and he won. Most years here Frank, McGovern, etc. are not even challenged, D's run unopposed all the time here.

go to wiki and check out what senate seats are up in '12 and '14. How do you think all those obamacare votes from the senators in MO, MT, ND, SD, NH, VA, NC, FL, NE, etc. are going to fare? The dem's will be defending very unfriendly ground the next two years.

Check out the wisdom of EJ Dionne from '08. External Link  and remember this time cover External Link  The D's are extinct is many areas right now except the cites. Check out MO, OH, PA, the entire south, TX, etc. After 4 years, pelosi gave the republicans more seats then they've had since the 1940's. I'll take it and all that down ticket stuff.

Cell phone factor - you can bet we'll hear a lot more about this. Nate Silver and his minions speak of little else, except the perfidious Rasmussen (whose misleading polls did the GOP no favors BTW). And I still can't quite buy all the cell phone talk. For instance, two of the most cell phone-only intessive states are UT and OK. Sure, they're red states, but even red states have hundreds of thousands of Democrats. Why didn't the polling miss on UT and OK (not in results, but in margin), if this factor is so important in Pacific states and CO?

Mail voting - easy to vote, easy to defraud. Pollsters may be having a difficult time getting their heads around likely vs. unlikely mail voters. IMO this is a bigger issue than the cell phone red herring.

Pacific Firewall - the idea explains what, but not how. Sure, the Dems spent a lot of $$ defending CA, WA, and CO. But if it were that simple, they could have spent more $$ and saved WI, IL, PA.

GOP complacency / Democratic desperation - I'm wondering if western voters, seeing the likely results, were motivated to vote or stay home based on results to date? Seeing GOP gains in the east, desperate Dems in the west took to the polls to stave off an even worse landslide, while cheerful Republicans stayed home figuring they had it won. Hey, if IL and PA can turn red, then Buck doesn't need me to come out tonight - he'll win CO easily without me.

@Hoover
Maybe it's time for the Republicans in Massachusetts to start moving across the border into New Hampshire and solidify that state for conservatives. Leave the liberals to wallow in their own filth.

@b-ver
That seems only to be true in Delaware. I did not hear any indication that Sue Lowden refused to support Angle and I believe that Norton endorsed Buck in Colorado. Those losses are not a result of primary race bitterness (though there was apparently some personal animosity towards Angle from the Republican leader in the NV state senate, whom Angle challenged in a primary once upon a time - he actually endorsed Reid, which probably sank Angle in the Reno/Washoe area where she needed to do well). The Tea Partiers ignored the personal baggage of their preferred candidates and assumed that everyone else would as well. Hopefully they've learned something from this and we will see a better crop of candidates in 2012 - ones that espouse both a Tea Party sensibility about fiscal issues while simultaneously avoiding the problems that sank some of this year's crop.

Hoover writes:
"How do you think all those obamacare votes from the senators in MO, MT, ND, SD, NH, VA, NC, FL, NE, etc. are going to fare? The dem's will be defending very unfriendly ground the next two years."

They now have a plausible, albeit imperfect, election strategy model in Joe Manchin of WV.

Maybe I'm just a worrywart. But what if Obama does run to the center, makes a few key concessions with House Republicans, mends fences with independent voters, and drives his approval ratings back up?

To me, last night is the salient example of what overconfidence and poor choices in primaries can bring. Michael Steele should begin the process of recruiting a thousand more Marco Rubios and Pat Toomeys and Ron Johnsons this very instant.