>>> The public has given our party a rebuke; and we believe Democrats
>>> need to accept the verdict and make some changes.
>
> Here's what I don't get: given that the rebuke was coming was clear to anyone who looked in the last 8 months, why does it take the finality of the actual election to learn this? Did they really think up until the end that this verdict might not be delivered?
> ...
> It really makes no sense.
Rationally, it makes no sense. Politically, it makes perfect sense - in fact there really isn't any alternative ("until philosophers become kings," etc.). Within the agonistic system of quantitative electoral democracy, the only operative "logic" is the tactical logic of positioning. Within that logic, to admit an obvious defeat before it has been rendered documentably incontrovertible is to signal a specific kind of weakness: a failure to grasp the nature of the terrain of battle, and the de facto rules of engagement.
The only exceptions are the rare individuals who possess the depth of character, clarity and credibility of vision, and conviction-unto-death to force open new discursive spaces within the otherwise twisted labyrinth of co-opted rhetoric, transparent spin and outright lies. And they generally kill those guys.