It's partly the fault of the Democratic Leadership Council and party leadership (I certainly hope McAuliffe's head is one of the first to roll) I think, for putting forth such a poor "status quo" candidate. It's partly the fault of the media for demonizing and/or marginalizing the other primary candidates who would have been much better had their coverage been better, like if Edwards had led the ticket. I don't know if Dean would have been electable, but I think the party would have been much less demoralized with a Dean loss.

Partisan hatred was also partly to blame. Hatred towards Bush blew up in the Anybody But Bush folks' faces, because instead of mobilizing their base, it alienated the progressives who stayed home and didn't vote, or didn't vote for prez, or voted for another candidate, including, obviously, Bush.

But finally, the partisan hatred for Bush fired up Bush's base, and brought them out in record numbers. I think that really hurt Kerry in the swing states. As I read David Corn of The Nation's very partisan and angry article in response to the election results yesterday, all I could think of is "hey, this guy STILL can't let go of the 2000 election, much less the 2004 results". When I ran into the people I know who were the most entrenched haters of all things Bush, they were still ranting about 2000. It was rather bizarre. But that hatred drove a lot of the Republican base to the polls, for sure.

The high levels of turn out should have favored the Dems on the ground. But the Republicans beat them this year at the get out the voters ground game too. So, it's a truly brave new world as far as that goes. The Republicans have power at the top, and a machine to grind out voters at the grassroots level. Now, the Democrats have one, but not the other.