I still take issue with your characterization.
I think we already debated this last week, but I think it should be stressed that American voters did not vote for Republicans my large majorities. About 51% reported voting for Republican House candidates, to 47% for Democrats. In the Senate, the spread was wider, 53%-46%, which is clearly due to the fact that the seats up for election this year were skewed in favor of red states (also, if you count Orman as a Democrat, which you insisted he was, the total is 52%-47%, similar to the House)*.
The structural realities of Congress give the Republicans an advantage, especially in the House. But the actual partisan spread among voters is not that great. By way of comparison, Republican Senate candidates received about 2.7 million more votes than Democratic candidates. This is smaller than the Republican lead in 2010 (over 3 million) and much smaller than the Democratic victory in 2012 (over 10 million).
While I appreciate the desire to read into this some type of historic drubbing, you of all people should know that the number of seats won does not necessarily reflect the level of support a party enjoys among the population as a whole.
Now, that's not to say there aren't a couple of things about the election that should be troubling to Democrats. While it's easy to explain the Congressional blowout as partially structural in nature, the loss of governorships is scary. Also bothersome should be the fact that exit polls showed that Democrats and Republicans came out in roughly the same numbers. The Republican victory was due to slightly more Democrats crossing over than the other way around, and a 54%-42% lean toward Republicans among independents.
goat
* I haven't seen a comprehensive list of House numbers, so those are based on exit polls. The Senate numbers are based on actual reported votes.
