Franken's only negative 462 votes as of this post.

Mail-in absentee votes by the elderly may just pull it over to Al.

Maybe I'm still too happy about Obama winning to play my role as a  democrat -- you know, seeing the downside in everything -- but if we really do pick up Oregon then that's not a terrible result by any stretch.  If Coleman does hold on, I guarantee you that he's going to hew closer to the center than he has in the past.  Same for Snowe, Collins, Spector, etc.  I think we'll actually be just fine in the Senate for the next two years.

If we actually still pull out Alaska (perhaps in a special election) or MN, I'd say things went VERY well.  60 was never likely, at least this cycle.  I think we have a good shot in 2010 though.  

Let's start bashing Obama immediately after he won the most stunning victory of my lifetime for not having enough coattails to pull some lackadaisical and some downright abhorrent Democratic candidates along with him.

Let's face it, Obama's a loser. NOT!!!!!!

Before we all get too upset, Obama is the first democratic president since LBJ to have any coattails.  Carter lost us seats in his election, and so did Clinton in both of his...

So, we should be happy that we managed to make significant gains, even though we got screwed by these last few weird cases here....

I believe Alaska law no longer allows gubernatorial appointments to senate vacancies.

Palin could certainly run for the seat though, should it open.

What on earth are you talking about? Democrats picked up between 5 and 9 new Senate seats without a loss (after picking up 6 without a loss in 2006) and ~25 seats in House (after 30 in 2006).  Expecting any more than that is preposterous and unrealistic.

Here in Florida, I voted the Democratic downballot All.The.Way.

Although it's not meant to be.  I am very excited to have a Democrat in the White House, particularly with the critical changes that are likely to happen in the near future with SCOTUS, if not this term, then the next (as incumbency has its powerS).  

Todd, I think the reason you are seeing some of the things that you are disappointed with is that this was an election about politics, and not an election about policy.  I know, this will sound terribly negative, but I thought this was the case way back in 2006, and I think it's the case now.  This isn't to minimize an Obama victory - he certainly ran one of the best campaigns in history.  Rather, it is to say that, while the progressive movement has increased, the country is still more or less split, and the resonating force was a desire to see new "politics" - that is, repudiating Bush.  What this means contextually is that, the focus for many was on the White House rather than the broader picture, thus meaning the downticket impact might not have been as significant.  

I don't have anything to back this up, other than personal opinion based on what I've read and seen.  That said, I will conclude with that

a)  Obama did have more downticket impact for a Democrat in a long time

b)  One step at a time.

I think the latter point needs to be stated.  If there is any fear I have out of this election (outside of uncertainty on Obama's foreign policy team in regards to dealing with China - I feel better about the people there's views on the rest of the world, but I'm concerned on how they deal with China), it is that we push too hard too fast.  It'll be tempting, due to the fact that overall control rests in the Democrats hands, but, without checking my history right now, more than 2 waves in an era where the country is still more or less divided is probably unlikely.  I'd like to maintain the progressive government, but I fear pushing too hard will likely cause us some problems in the future (particularly 2012, as 2010 has, if I'm not mistaken, more Senate Republicans defending than Democrats, and off the top of my head, several Republicans seem really weak, such as Murkowski, Vitter?, maybe Bunting ... I really gotta check a list).

I felt some let down because my expectations were very high, but when you get down to it, this was a pretty impressive race for the Democrats, particularly when you factor in 2006 -- a lot of the low hanging fruit was already gone.

Now we're back to pre-1994 levels, and the Dixiecrats have pretty much finished their migration to the GOP.

So, there's definitely reason for optimism.  

Obama is not a magician. His main contribution to downticket races was to increase base turnout. It was upto the party and the local candidate to mint the increased turnout in their favor. As far as getting him to convince voters to vote downticket in every region of the country was one too many steps to expect.

There were some pretty big Green votes here in Cook County IL. I wouldn't count them against Obama, but more against the continuing Cook County corruption as described in the recent Rezko trial.

Some of the losses were tough ones:  Trauner, Debbie Cook, the South Florida Trio, Alaska.  We did win two (hopefully) in Virginia, Sali's seat in Idaho, and hopefully MD's 1st District.  Bittersweet, for sure.

I can't believe all the chirpy comments. You have to be greedy in wave elections. That's why Carville was properly livid in 2006 when he saw about 10-12 House seats left on the table. He identified my district, NV-3, as one of them, Tessa Hafen's senseless narrow defeat. Carville was absolutely right. We prioritized that district from the outside this cycle, and Dina Titus ousted Jon Porter comfortably by 5 or 6%.

Newsflash: now we're on defense in coming cycles. It was absolutely vital to pick off every last opportunity this time. That's why I stayed up and sweated Franken and Begich and everyone else, and will continue to. It's not unlike a college football team that wins a championship and then falls agonizingly close a year later, like Miami in '02 or USC in '05. A few years removed and you realize the tight defeat was even more devastating than it seemed at the time, since grabbing another title is increasingly elusive.

I'm not particularly surprised at the lower than anticipated House net. On progressive message boards there was curiously little emphasis and spotlight on individual races, other than Bachmann late. I had a feeling that was a hint we wouldn't get the huge chunk that some pundits were estimating.

I think its the single party rule...  We had 6 years of that and it REALLY SUCKED...  Most of the close Senate losses were either heavy GOP or Heavy Indie states....  I have to think that a filibuster proof Dem majority scared the shit out of a lot of republicans and motivated them out.

I do not really understand why anyone who fears single party rule would vote for Obama and then vote for Republicans downticket.  I mean, everyone knew the Democrats would control the House and Senate no matter what.  If you wanted divided government, the only option was to vote for McCain.

So let's think about why anyone would vote for Obama and Norm Coleman on the same ballot.  Either they were confused about what one or the other stood for, or else they just weren't all that ideological to begin with.  You know, I've been making the argument for a long time that people don't just intuitively understand that the way you get progressive policies is to vote for Democrats.  You have to spell it out and make it clear that there's a overarching Democratic program and you should elect more of us if you like it.

Barack Obama did a great job in terms of campaigning for and supporting the downticket candidates, but the one thing I always gave him grief for was the refusal to play the "politics of contrast" by explaining what the things are that Democrats support and Republicans oppose.  Instead, voters got a good sense of the things Obama supports, and they voted for him so they must have liked those things.  But in part because he wanted to use this post-partisan message of his, he didn't do much campaigning along the lines of "if you want the things I'm promising, you have to give me as many Democrats in Congress as possible."  It's my belief that you really do have to spell this out.

I still think the combined impact of 2006 and 2008 stacks up favorably against any two-cycle run in history.  Frankly, the fact that the Democrats have won so much just based upon Republican incompetence, without doing anything to establish their own ability to govern the country, is pretty remarkable.  That leads me to believe there's still some untapped potential out there if we do a good job over the next few years.

that Franken is going to pull this one out.

Coleman's pre-emptively arguing against the recount tells me he knows something we don't know.

Here's hoping . . .

Yeah our optimism was not quite there with Reality... but we won the White House... we PUSHED McConnell the brink... we increased our majority and should get a lot of things passed....

best of all, 2010 Looks like we have several great pickup Opportunities...

Kansas - Brownback is retiring, Sebelius is on term limits... We could see a situation like Virginia this year and Arizona in 2010 as well.

Arizona - McCain will either run again or retire, but Neopolitano is a strong candidate for the seat.

Alaska - Murkowski is the epitomy of corrupt nepotism... However, the fact that Stevens may win makes this harder... a lot of factors will come into play.

Florida - Martinez is a douche and will get a strong primary challenge.  He is beatable.

Iowa - Grassley is old and may retire... Vilsack would be a strong opponent.

Kentucky - PAGING BEN CHANDLER, PAGING BEN CHANDLER...   Bunning is ripe to be taken out after 2004 when an unknown nearly knocked him off.  Lunsford may also be an option.

Louisana - This is a longer shot but if they hit Vitter's Hookers hard, we could win.

Missouri - Kit Bond is not liked at all... There are several strong names, including Roger WIlson and the Carnahan kids, who could win this seat.

New Hampshire - Blue State with several nice choices to face Gregg including John Lynch.

North Carolina - A state that Obama won, where Hagen won and is trending bluer each election.   A great pickup chance with the right candidate...

Ohio - Voinovich is a prime target in a state that is trending back our way.

Oklahoma - Brad Henry would be a great candidate to face Coburn

PA - Specter is an institution, but he may change his mind on  re-election.  Even if he does run, there are several strong Dems who could retire him.

South Dakota - Daschle's old seat... There are a few Dems who could win.

I see 14 GOP seats that could potentially be competitive, depending on who runs.  Maybe we should look at some draft movements on some of our stronger people.  

Retirements will play a big part in how many we have to defend... but the totals are 19-15 GOP... this will be the last cycle we have less to defend.

It is a great day, but I live in Minnesota and really feel like the party didn't finish the job.  Two House elections went to Republicans (Paulsen in the 3rd and Bachmann in the 6th) and Coleman may escape in the Senate election.  In all three of those national offices, the winner was well below 50%.  Because of Jesse Ventura's win of the governorship 10 years ago, his Independence Pary is considered a major party and votes for Independence candidates have cost Democrats the governorship last year, as well as perhaps a Senate seat this year.

On an unrelated note, if scandals and nepotism can't bring down Republicans in Alaska, nothing will.  If Stevens wins the seat, the Democrats in that state won't take it away in a Special Election.  Hopefully, the early and absentee votes put Begich over the top.  And what does it take to oust Don Young?  Apparently, dead girls or live boys.

...for what we expecting? +9 senate seats without a loss for a supermajority?

Personally, I think Democrats went into safe mode to protect an Obama Presidency, and if they had been a little less conservative the past two weeks, they may have had enough to put OR and MN and AK over the top. But the news cycle shifted away from them, and they played it safe.

People are going to be very wary of granting them a supermajority in the senate.

Let's remember that the Democrats picked up 30 house seats and 6 senate seats in 2006. Given those victories, there just wasn't as much fertile territory available this time.  If the Democrats end up winning 6 senate seats and 23 or so house seats, that's 12 senate seats and 53 house seats over two consecutive elections.  Not bad at all by the standards of recent history!

Sure there are some disappointments.  The Stevens reelection is a disgrace.  Ugh, Bachmann got elected again!  So did McConnell.  Coleman may just not have been unpopular enough to lose very easily to a very different sort of candidate (I'm not comparing Franken to Jesse Ventura but Minnesotans still have some memories and regrets over that vote).  I don't care much for Coleman but I admit that he maintains a reasonable public persona and his shortcomings are not immediately obvious to those who haven't followed him closely.  And, even if Oregon's Smith hangs on, he's not such a bad senator.

Still, some notably bad Republicans went down:

Marilyn Musgrave, CO
Tom Feeney, FL
Robin Hayes, NC
Randy Kuhl, NY
Walberg, MI
Steve Chabot, OH
And, hooray, Bill Sali, ID (can you believe Democrats will have a congressman in Idaho?)

So, chin up.  Wishing for anything more than last night might be construed as being greedy!

I think he definitely had coattails in New Mexico - a complete sweep of the 3 House districts, two of them pickups.  That 15 point win at the top of the ticket certainly didn't hurt.  I also think he played a big role in the pickups in NV and CO.

Wouldn't anti-incumbency work against Dems since they are in charge of Congress?