Anti-Climacus

WELL, AT LEAST WE DIDN'T LOSE THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S RACE: And it is using that as a starting point that I would like to make the following (highly) counterfactual claim: The Democratic Party didn't do that badly yesterday. Don't get me wrong, they sucked it up all over the place, losing every even remotely winnable election. So what's the good news?

1. Pryor wins in Arkansas, Harkin wins in Iowa, and Baucus wins in Montana: these represent, generally, the three types of elections Democrats found themselves in: where the region favored the Republican, where there was a stronger than expected challenge, and where there was no challenge to speak of (though there should've been). Pryor won, in no small part (did you see the ad where he reads the Bible to his children? Classic) because he wasn't afraid to give himself a moral dimension. Apart from how this plays well in AK (no Bill Clinton jokes, kiddies), it makes smart politics: defeat the 'family values' guy by not being afraid to display your own family values-- that is, nullify the issue (or make the issue yours, when you're dealing someone with the lapsed ethics of a Tim Hutchinson). In other words, be willing to put up a fight-- don't concede any ground at all, and it makes it harder for your opponent's attacks to stick.
As far as Harkin and Baucus go, you'd have to do more research than I have into the elections to see why Ganske couldn't maintain his traction and Taylor couldn't ever get any in the first place. But if I were Chairman of the DNC (and, God willing, one day I will be), I'd be picking the brains of the people working for those candidates. They did something right.

2. CNN's most recent numbers have Democratic candidates ahead in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Oregon, as well as scoring pickups in Wisconsin, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Michigan, Maine, Kansas and Illinois. That's a hell of a lot of state machinery that just came under Democratic control. Any rehibilitation of the party that will occur is going to have to start on the statewide level, and this is a good sign that Democrats can expect more help in the next election and beyond. Obviously, the longer any of these people can stay in office (and the more Dems they can drag with them) the better, but even marginal changes in states like Illinois, Pennsylvania and Kansas will have huge electoral implications in the future.

3. A lot of the really mediocre Democratic candidates for President were swept off the stage last night: Daschle and Gephardt are out (and I predict Gephardt is also out as Minority Leader), and Kerry and Edwards will, hopefully, have the sense not to waste their effort in two years. One of the unfortunate effects of last night is that the Dems pretty much rolled over on 2004: it will be hard to beat Bush, if not impossible. Of course, there is an intriguing possibility that keeps getting mentioned more and more seriously: Gary Hart. Imagine, a Democratic candidate with actual ideas about how to do things!