Analysis From The Guardian Dimension: Election Not A Loss For Dems!!!!111

Crazy as everybody is over there, I actually think the core of this largely nutty screed should be taken seriously. Y'know, not the parts about TEH REPUBLIKKKAN NAZI TAKEOVER!!!111... But a weakened form of the central argument to the effect that the election results were to some extent predictable. She relies on the argument that the OD tends to elect Governors of a different party than the President. I don't remember this pattern, and haven't checked it out, so I don't know whether it exists, nor how strong it is. Nor whether it should even matter. But this argument didn't show up until it was time for damage control after the Dems loss. Also it doesn't explain why McAuliffe led for so much of the race, and why the polls switched so rapidly after the CRT issue and McAuliffe's commentary thereon. To the naive observer, it rather seems that issues might matter a bit to OD voters...

   Also: do gubernatorial candidates tend to sweep in lieutenant governors and AG candidates on their coattails? 

   Anyway, what's-her-name, the author, cites several victories by (and I'm not making this up) "mayors of color." And some other stuff. I was honestly skimming by that point.

   But anyway, independent of what's-her-name's argument: the progressive left has gone utterly insane, and the Dems have largely ceded control to their insane ideas. Pubs should be out there winning by landslides everywhere. But they aren't. As Insty often reminds us: don't get cocky.