Dems performed better in the Senate than the House. Here's why

[DrToast]

David Frum put into words something I was thinking about earlier tonight.

Is tonight's theme: Generic Republicans win, specific Republicans less strong- especially if over-identified with TP?

http://twitter.com/#!/davidfrum/status/29545207304

House races are less publicized and people know less about House candidates. Senators are practically rock stars compared to members of the House. So what does that mean?

The more people knew about the Republican candidate, the worse they did.

There's just no way Republicans shouldn't have won in Nevada, but they lost because Angle is so crazy that she couldn't even win in the best year in ages for Republicans. And the economy is even worse in Nevada than it is elsewhere.

[Clio the Leo]

1. I live it! nt

[DaveinMD]

2. they didn't perform better

less seats were in play. If all Senate seats were in play, we would have lost the Senate as well.

[Bitwit1234]

3. Back in 2008 a lot of Democrats won in red states. In this election

the republicans won the seats back. Look at the map and the states and see. No matter what those red states almost always pick republicans.

[DaveinMD]

4. we lost those seats

and a bunch more. We lost seats we've held forever. We lost David Obey's seat. It was a bloodbath. It's going to take a long time to compensate for what was lost tonight.

[krawhitham]

6. they won 56% of house seats & 65% of Senate seats up for grabs tonite

So far, still 22 house seats & 3 Senate season undecided

[golfguru]

7. So repugs did better in senate races than house races?

That contradicts with the OP thesis.

[Kalun D]

8. agree

[JCMach1]

5. Computerized gerrymandering and that will only get worse with Repugs in control of more state houses

[BlueMTexpat]

9. I agree with Dave in MD - we kept control of the Senate because

not all 100 seats were in play. As another difference, each Senator also represents an entire state. Congressional reps come from districts. They only represent an entire state when that state's population numbers don't support more Representatives than one. Because of that, they are more directly known by the people of their districts and they have to stand for re-election every two years.

When Howard Dean was Chairman of the DNC, he supported state networks in all 50 states because he knew that was exactly what we needed to keep control of the House of Representatives. And we won in 2006 in places where we had never won before (or at least for a very long time) - and we did that in 2008 too. I fear that Kaine & Co have followed the Rahm-DNC playbook and let state networks, except in states they considered "key," languish. Heck, they didn't even do that well in "key" states.

Yes, Dem House members were more vulnerable in 2010 because of unpopular decisions that had to be made. They stuck their necks out where Senate Blue Dogs - and unmentionable pieces of &#!+% like Joementum would not let the Senate follow. We all would have been better off if they had followed the House's lead. But had all state networks had the kind of support they had when Dean was DNC Chair, I sincerely believe that we would have done better in the House and likely in the Senate as well.

Of course, the media and the talking heads didn't help one bit. But we might as well write them off completely. They will not change now.