The morning after the midterms the presses and the cable studios and the podcast microphones all throbbed with the same unrestrained delight. What the Democratic Party and its media auxiliaries had long advertised as a mere blue wave arrived instead as a blue tsunami, drowning House seats and Senate seats alike, from the Texas plains to the Kansas wheat fields and the coastal counties of South Carolina. Reporters who for two years had treated every economic inconvenience and every foreign entanglement as a personal indictment of the sitting president now spoke in tones of almost liturgical satisfaction. The numbers were recited as if they were not merely tallies of ballots but the long-delayed vindication of a class that had never reconciled itself to the electorate’s earlier choices. On television the smiles were broad; on radio the analysis was giddy; in the pages of the major dailies the prose itself seemed to breathe more easily. The relief was not merely professional. It was existential.

That relief was the tell. The same outlets that had spent the preceding cycle warning of authoritarianism, of norm-breaking, of the imminent collapse of republican government now greeted the transfer of congressional power with the unselfconscious cheer of a crowd that had always believed power belonged, by right, to itself. Commentators who ordinarily police language for any hint of partisan excess allowed themselves unguarded expressions of triumph. Podcast hosts who had diagnosed MAGA as a form of civic pathology treated the returns as therapy. Social-media threads filled with the language of restoration and reckoning, as though the American people had finally remembered the script their betters had written for them. Nowhere was there serious inquiry into whether the voters who produced these margins might have acted from ordinary grievances—prices, border management, the conduct of a distant war—rather than from a sudden conversion to the progressive catechism. The glee itself supplied the answer: the result was welcome precisely because it rebuked the wrong people.

This pattern is not new, yet its persistence remains clarifying. When the electorate chooses in ways that enlarge the influence of institutions already aligned with the major newsrooms, those newsrooms discover in the outcome a pure expression of popular will. When the electorate chooses otherwise, the same newsrooms discover irregularities, disinformation, and the permanent emergency of unlettered majorities. The distinction is not subtle, and the morning after this particular election made it impossible to miss. The palpable pleasure taken in the blue tsunami was not the pleasure of journalists recording a fact; it was the pleasure of partisans watching an opposing coalition lose. In that moment the claim that the press constitutes a neutral fourth estate was once again exposed as the useful fiction it has long been. The American people have been told for years that certain news organizations stand against them. On the morning the blue tsunami was declared, those organizations confirmed the accusation with their own unguarded voices.

Additional ADNN Articles: 

Media Prepares Excuses to Bury Election Irregularities Before Ballots Count
No Democrat State Checks Citizenship on Its Voter Rolls
The Joy of Watching Close Midterms After Losing 81 Million Votes
Trump’s DOJ Files Lawsuits to Secure Midterm Ballot Integrity