Progressives will say that of the 78 House members in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, only three lost on Tuesday. What they won't mention is those three losers were the only progressive caucus members from competitive districts. (That actually overstates the case, because Rep. Phil Hare's Illinois district is not competitive, and he lost it anyway.)

The liberals won't mention that even progressive stars with heavily Democratic districts came within a few thousand votes of losing: Dennis Kucinich (53 percent of the vote), Raul Grijalva (49.4 percent), Maurice Hinchey (52.4 percent), Peter DeFazio (53.6 percent), Loretta Sanchez (52 percent).

They won't mention that progressive nominees lost in every single competitive open-seat House race.

Why did Democrats lose? Maybe it's because the voters, even if they are willing to elect Democrats at times, reject progressive policies. Maybe it's because only 20 percent of Americans identify themselves as liberals, while twice as many identify as conservatives.

But a discussion like that requires more introspection than most progressives seem able to muster right now. It can't be that -- it has to be a "messaging problem!" It has to be that evil corporations bought the election! It has to be Karl Rove! Rahm Emanuel! Halliburton! Fox News!

Some people call this "epistemic closure."

And that's why Pelosi, who has made possible the largest Republican House majority since 1946, will not only continue to lead her party, but will receive no serious challenge for the top position.

Just think: The 2012 cycle is already here, and Republicans won't have to make a single new political ad.