More election facts

The analysis continues, with some interesting facts coming out:

1. According to DemocracyforAmerica.com, 94% of the Progressive Caucus retained their seats, while only 47% of the Blue Dog Democrats did. Analyzing the progressives who won and those who lost, they conclude this message: "For Democrats to win in the future, they need to fight for the people they represent and stop cutting deals to water down reform with the same corporate interests who will turn around and spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat Democrats year after year."

2. Jane Hamsher points out that this should not be taken as a triumph for the Republican party. Voters' allegiance to party is probably weaker than ever. "Independent voter" is the fastest growing constituency in the country. This was more of a revolt against who's in control -- and it could switch back the other way just as easily. As she says, "Republicans who think their agenda has just been given a massive public endorsement are delusional -- their primary virtue is that they were an opposition party to an unpopular president whose programs aren't making people's lives better at a time of economic insecurity."

3. Mickey Nardo is right in his comment to my "Losses and wins" blog, saying that Obama never expected that the economy would be his to fix. He came in to do big, progressive things; and he just couldn't realize he needed to switch priorities and fix the economy instead of fixing health care. Sure, he was right that you couldn't fix the economy without fixing health care; but he needed to do some triage first and do life-saving techniques before attempting major surgery. If the patient dies before you get to the OR, the surgery isn't going to help.

In the end, those in swing districts who voted for health care did worse than those who voted against it. And similar votes may linger like unexploded mines, waiting for those who will be up for re-election in 2012; and in the senate, twice as many Dems will be up for re-election as Repubs, which makes the Dems' senate control much more vulnerable than in 2010 -- and with fewer seats to lose. In 2012, lose 3 seats and they lose control of the senate.

4. It's interesting that Wall Street hardly reacted at all to the election. The Dow-Jones went up about 0.2% today. That's nothing, when we've seen swings of 3% or 4% in one day as reaction to some economic news. I would interpret that to mean that investors don't expect much to change, one way or the other. Makes you wonder at some interpretations that big business was the big winner. I expected the market to go up like crazy.

5. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) defeated Rep. Fitzpatrick in 2008 by a narrow margin, riding in on the Obama sweep. Fitzpatrick beat him in the 2010 rematch, riding the GOP tide in PA that also defeated Joe Sistak. Murphy distinguished himself in his single term by volunteering to spearhead the drive to repeal DADT in the House -- and he did, effectively, although it didn't survive the Senate . . . yet. He was the ideal champion: Iraq war vet, straight, but gay friendly. He said at the time that he knew it could make him a one-term congressman, but the principle was that important to him. It looks like that probably wasn't what defeated him but the more general drive to send in a more conservative team.

6. The House picked up a fourth openly gay member, David Cicilline, mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, keeping Patrick Kennedy's seat in the Democratic column. He won't bring an additional vote on gay issues, though, because Patrick Kennedy was one of the most reliable supporters of gay rights.

Ralph