... The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. WSJ didn't endorse anyone in the election but it's clear they're feeling down about the results of last night's election.
After the first presidential debate -- the one Mitt Romney clearly won -- the New York Times published a repellingly bitter editorial, calling the entire event "unhelpful" and chocked Romney's win up to him simply lying the whole way through. That's how WSJ's editorial comes off the day after President Obama was reelected for a second term.
"[T]he definition of winning ugly," the editorial says of Obama's victory. "Mr. Obama also benefitted from his long run of extraordinary good luck. Hurricane Sandy devastated the Northeast a week before Election Day, letting him rise for a few days above the partisanship that has defined his first term."
And that's the definition of cynical. Most people wouldn't call a hurricane that left many people's lives in ruins "extraordinary good luck," no matter what benefit it may have had on a campaign. At least not out loud.
But, for all the negativity, the editorial at least closes on something of an optimistic note: "There are few permanent victories or defeats in American politics, and Tuesday wasn't one of them. The battle for liberty begins anew this morning."
So there's that.