ANY time there is a win in any stretch of the imagination, you come in, Dpareja, and start spouting off on how Democrats are skilled at losing, how even if they win they're not true progressives, how the REAL SUCCESS was by REAL PROGRESSIVE, while the Corrupt Business As Usual Democrats LOST LOST LOST LOST!
Because anything else would be admitting Mr. "I don't think having racist thoughts makes you racist" has problems or isn't the end all and be all.
OK, let me explain my position:
There are two aspects to winning: a) what gives you the best chance of winning and b) what do you do once you've won.
I should preface this by saying that a win is a win.
Now, on a), what I have observed is that, as a general rule--of course there are exceptions--Democratic candidates who run on more progressive platforms tend to do better than Democratic candidates who run on more conservative platforms. This is not, of course, to say that the former will win and the latter will not. One need only consider Beto O'Rourke and Joe Manchin respectively. But when I consider various high-profile Senate races, I see that, generally, the progressive candidates, like Brown and Baldwin, won comfortably, while the conservative candidates won by a lower margin, or outright lost. (Again, O'Rourke didn't win, but he made a race competitive that nobody anticipated would be competitive. Manchin won, but by a small margin--far smaller than his 2012 margin. And Tester won, by about a point less than in 2012, and he's not a progressive, but he is anti-corruption.)
Furthermore, when I consider the various ballot initiatives, what I see is that on the policies themselves, American voters tend to agree (again, this is not a hard-and-fast rule, especially in particular states like Alabama) with the progressive position, even when they vote for the Republican candidate. Consider Ballotpedia's list:
https://ballotpedia.org/2018_ballot_measuresI'll lead off with Alabama, where voters approved one measure that's clearly unconstitutional (displaying the Ten Commandments on state property) and another that's obviously a challenge to Roe, Doe and Casey. As I said, we're not dealing with a hard-and-fast rule here about American voters preferring progressive policies.
Arizona passed, by a 56-44 margin (wider than Rep. Sinema's margin over Rep. McSally--and again, a win is a win) a ballot measure to restrict the flow of money in politics.
Arkansas was a mixed bag: on the one hand, a ballot measure to require photo ID to vote received 80% support, and those laws have a disproportionate impact on racial minorities and are arguably, for federal elections, unconstitutional poll taxes, but on the other hand approved a ballot measure to raise the minimum wage with about 68.5% support.
Colorado passed measures to effectively ban partisan gerrymandering, both for the US House and the state legislature, with about 71% support for each, and also restricted payday loan interest to 36% annually with 77% support. They did, however, reject an initiative to switch to a progressive income tax instead of a flat tax, with 54% against.
Florida voters approved a measure to restore the voting rights of anyone with a felony conviction other than for murder or sexual offences, upon completion of sentence (prison, parole and probation), with about 64.5% in favour (with 60% needed to pass). They also banned offshore oil and gas drilling, with 69% in favour, and passed an anti-lobbying measure with 79% in favour--while the Governor and Senate races are headed to recounts.
Idaho--one of the most deeply Republican states in the country--accepted the ACA's Medicaid expansion with about 60% in favour.
Louisiana voters moved the requirement for a conviction in a felony jury trial from 10 of 12 jurors to unanimity, with about 64% in favour.
Michigan--where Sen. Stabenow won re-election with about a 6-point majority--removed the state's criminal ban on recreational marijuana with 56% in favour, eliminated partisan gerrymandering with 61% in favour, and added certain voting policies like automatic voter registration and same-day voter registration to the state Constitution with 67% in favour.
Missouri considered three amendments to legalize medical marijuana, each with a different tax rate. Voters approved the measure establishing a 4% rate with about 65.5% in favour, while rejecting the measures establishing a 2% rate and 15% rate with 56.5% opposing the former and 68.6% opposing the latter. (Note that each measure had different stipulations regarding how the money collected would be spent.) Voters also raised the minimum wage, with 62.3% in favour, and created a position for a nonpartisan official tasked with drawing legislative district boundaries with 62% in favour.
Montana did reject the Medicaid expansion, but the initiative came with an increase in tobacco taxes. Even so, only 53% voted against. (Also, the main group opposing the measure outspent the main group supporting it by a nearly two-to-one margin.)
Nebraska, where Sen. Fischer won re-election with about 58% of the vote, saw voters approve the Medicaid expansion with 53.2% in favour. (And recall that Sen. Fischer voted for a full repeal of the ACA during the "vote-a-rama" last year, but probably at least 20% of the people who voted for her also voted to expand Medicaid under the ACA.)
Nevada, where Rep. Rosen won election to the Senate by about 7 points, exempted feminine hygiene products from the state's sales tax with 56.5% approval, established a form of automatic voter registration with 59.6% in favour, and gave initial approval to a renewable energy requirement with 59.3% in favour. (The last will come up for another vote in 2020, as it is an amendment to the state Constitution.)
North Dakota approved a measure to restrict certain campaign contributions and certain lobbyist activities, and make campaign finance information publicly accessible, with 53.6% in favour. They did, however, reject marijuana legalization, with about 59.5% opposed.
Oregon voters rejected a ban on the use of public funds for abortion, with about 64.5% opposed.
Utah, where Gov. Romney won election to the Senate by 31 points, approved the Medicaid expansion with 53.6% support and legalized medical marijuana with about 52.75% support. An initiative to create an independent redistricting commission is too close to call. (Per Ballotpedia, "Yes" leads by 32 votes with 82% of precincts reporting.)
Washington state tightened gun laws with 59.8% in favour (Sen. Cantwell won re-election with 58.6% support).
My submission is manifestly not that wins only count when it's progressives winning, or that when it's an overwhelming win. Wins are wins--but so too losses are losses. My submission is that given the stated policy positions of the people, determined from polling and ballot initiatives, Democratic candidates running on progressive platforms have, in general, a better chance of winning than Democratic candidates running on conservative platforms.
On b), the question is what is done upon gaining power. And what we see is that the last time Democrats had full control of Congress and the Presidency, they passed what was the Republican alternative to the Democratic proposal during Clinton's Presidency. They passed financial regulations--Dodd-Frank--but that was a far cry from anything like Glass-Steagall, and it's been chipped away over the course of Obama's Presidency and now Trump's. And unlike this year, where Trump went around before the election and got his base riled up to vote, blunting the strong Democratic turnout, Obama didn't do that--or not nearly as much--in 2010 or 2014.
And this is where I think one of the best aspects of the US electoral system comes into play--primaries. One way of keeping politicians in check is threatening to cost them their renomination, and that's arguably easier to do in the US system than most other places.
Now, as to the point about hope, that the results of the 2018 election makes it harder for Democrats to retake the Senate in 2020 is simply a fact. So too is the observation that Republicans are putting young batshit insane ideologues on the federal courts, and that will make it harder for Democratic policies to stick. But that isn't a reason to give up hope--that's a reason to fight even harder.