Hmm. Democrats lost because it was a second-term midterm election, with all that entails. But the question of how and why the country managed to elect a bunch of Republicans while also passing props that directly contradicted conservative values is a really interesting one. I've been thinking about it lately. I have an unfounded theory that the difference is voting for people rather than issues. I think the 18-30 bracket has just been bitten too much when it come to voting for people and expecting good results. Understandable. But when they see an issue come along -- something clear cut like, "should residents of Oregon be able to own an ounce of marijuana, yes or no," they can happily vote yes and feel like they've done something. There's no downside to voting in favor of legalization, from their point of view, while the benefit of electing a Democratic governor is a "more of the same so who cares" mentality.
I think you're right. All the party results seem to show is that we have a grand apathy toward party politics. I heard that this was the lowest voter turnout since WWII. That's incredible, but not as incredible as the grand pronouncements we keep having to hear in the media about why the election turned out like it did. To me, the most obvious thing we can glean from the results is that people just don't see the point anymore in voting for one party over another. But the party not in power is always going to have the upper hand in midterms, because their people are more dissatisfied than the others, and therefore more motivated to get out there. People will see why voting matters, however, when the Court guts the ACA by validating a ridiculous challenge to the way the law is worded (arguments will be in spring, I think, so we have until summer for the law to be all but thrown out). It will be Roberts's way of showing conservatives he is still one of them while simultaneously being able to blame Congress for the error. Brilliant. So much for being on your parents' insurance until age 26, kids.