One reason that many progressive Congress members kept

[MineralMan]

their seats:

The congresswoman in my district (MNCD4), centered around Saint Paul, is Betty McCollum. She's a strong progressive, who supports single-payer health care and other progressive ideals. She won with almost 2/3 of the vote on Tuesday. Pretty good, huh? Well, here's the thing: This district is strongly Democratic and has been for a very long time. This will be her fourth or fifth term. She did have a teabaggerish opponent, but was never in any danger. This district ALWAYS votes for progressives. It's the home of several colleges and universities, is the seat of state government, and is heavily populated with labor-oriented, ethnically diverse, and academic constituents.

That Betty McCollum retained her seat really says little to nothing about the general state of politics in the country. There is no way she would have lost her seat, no matter what was going on.

Similar conditions exist for most of the truly progressive Congress members who retained their seats in this election. Most live in districts where progressivism is a tradition, and often for similar reasons as here in MNCD4.

Frankly, I don't make much of this. It's not a surprise that districts that traditionally have elected progressives did so again. It's also not a surprise that many Blue Dog Democrats who were swept into office in normally conservative districts in 2008 did not prevail this year. Often, they were a surprise even in 2008, and won their elections in districts that are traditionally held by Republicans.

There was most certainly a shift back to Red for many places that were traditionally Red. That's not in question. But, in many cases, those places had been Red for a long time, with 2008 being something of an aberration for many of them. That's why this shift doesn't really predict very much, and why not too much can be made of the numbers involved.

We need to look, instead, more closely at places like MNCD8, where a traditionally Democratic district elected a Republican. In that district, a long time representative, Oberstar, was defeated by a Republican. Why that happened and why it happened in that district is something that needs a lot of study. Same with Feingold, a progressive who lost his seat in a place where he had been elected multiple times. Those are the places where we need to pay close attention. The unremarkable doesn't need to be examined too closely. Just the remarkable.

[Progressive_In_NC]

1. The bad thing is the Repubs control 30 something state legislatures in a census year

Redistricting is going to be hard on the progressives. NC's legistature is Red for the first time in 108 years. Just in time to redraw a lot of the districts in the state. Brad Miller is my congressman and he is safe in a 2/3s dem voting district. I have a distinct feeling that is about to change.

[MineralMan]

3. You're correct, of course. However, many states have some

pretty strong rules that make gerrymandering a lot more difficult than in the past. Minnesota was one of the states where the state houses switched from Democratic to Republican, but the margins of that majority is pretty small. We also have some difficult barriers to gerrymandering built into the system, and that will limit, at least somewhat, the dangers. It's going to be difficult to change the districts, for example, in Minneapolis and St. Paul, simply because of the population concentration.

It's important for people in every state to check how redistricting will be done and to participate in influencing that. Every state is different, and every state handles the process in different ways. It's time to check your state if it has switched to Republican control. This is an important area where activism can be useful.

[TwilightGardener]

2. You bring up a good point. If the nation as a whole was rejecting

Democrats and Obama, it sure didn't look that way in CA and MA--and many other Dem strongholds. It didn't even look that way in purple CO, which remains...purple. Need to examine why some localities are turning redder, and focus on that--I agree.

[Scruffy1]

4. You don't need to dig too deep to know why.

i remember a study on racism in Minnesota from the 70's . The basic results were that the less contact areas had with minorities the more racist they are. District 8 cam in on top of the list. Nearly all white, outside of a few Indians.
If you look at the Us election results you'll see nearly all of the gains came from rural, small minority areas. The Republicans were smart enough to play the Race card, which is what the Tea Party was all about. Do you really think that these assholes cared about the debt? The same ones who watched W. run the whole country on a credit card.
The Republican leader engaged the best minds of Madison Ave. to shape the whole election into a racial vendetta only in terms that didn't seem so overt in order to give them a little plausible denyability. Thus the tea party was created to make sure that they could take most of the racist heat.

Of course the media helped them out because they know who pays the bills. When's the last time any of you bought a million in advertising.

If you really want back control from the fascists a good start would be to set that TV set out on the curb, turn off your radio and spend some time soul searching to figure out what you really believe and how much you are willing to do to get it. I made that decision a long time ago and will fight back as long as I have breath with all that I have.
Just like the old cowboy I am, when I get thrown off I check for broken bones and get back in the saddle. And remember this. It was a hell of a big deal to elect someone that wasn't white to the Presidency, even if it doesn't turn out the way you like. Change is a permanent condition.