Pro-labor progressives took a walloping on Election Day and we should face it squarely. A loss is a loss and a big loss is a big loss. Losing control of the U.S. Senate is a serious defeat. All that Tea Party legislation proposed by the House of Representatives will now get a sympathetic hearing in the upper house.

The president’s veto power must now protect us from the dark instincts of those who would dismantle the centurylong progressive social contract for which labor has fought.

It is almost as if there are two American electorates: those who vote in presidential elections and those who vote in midterm and local elections. But there is also evidence that the midterm electorate, the lowest turnout since 1942, included some voters who surprisingly defy that division.

I asked Ken Goodfriend in our Florida office to compare the turnout in counties in which we have had some influence between 2010 — the last midterm (Tea Party) election — and this one. This year’s turnout was actually higher than in 2010. Does this mean the opposition outvoted us or voted in higher numbers in more conservative districts? Or does it mean that we were not successful in getting our message out? Or did the anti-Obama tidal wave simply trump everything?

Analysts found that in states like North Carolina, Colorado, Wisconsin and others there exists an academic/urban-rural divide. Republicans made significant inroads among rural white voters and some candidates attracted young and Hispanic constituencies.

The youth vote doesn’t mean they are going Republican because party identity is meaningless to half of them, and that rate will grow. They pose a new kind of constituency, fluctuating and unpredictable, socially liberal but willing to back conservatives now and then. So candidates and messages matter.

Now we must face some realities and consider how to proceed. The conservative writer George Will has said that the American public is philosophically conservative but operationally liberal. For example, remember when the Republicans tried to privatize Social Security? Even Republican-leaning voters rose up and stopped it. (And just before the market crashed.) Think of the now iconic and ironic sign in an anti-government rally that said: KEEP THE GOVERNMENT’S HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE. (Duh!) As Will and others have pointed out: Just try to close a neighborhood library.

Americans like the government services provided by progressive officials, but they often don’t like progressives. Maybe they don’t like to be preached at. In four deep red states — Arkansas, Nebraska, Alaska and South Dakota — voters chose pro-business, anti-labor candidates, while overwhelmingly passing ballot initiatives calling for a rise in the minimum wage by 10- to 38-point margins. Kentuckians hate Obamacare, but KentuckyCares Healthcare — Obamacare with a different name — is wildly popular.

Some bright spots: Union seniors voted for progressive candidates by a margin of 35 percent, and New Hampshire’s Sen. Jeanne Shaheen held off her challenger from Massachusetts. In California, where the anti-tenure court decision became the chief issue in the state’s highest-profile statewide contest, Tom Torlakson, the pro-tenure incumbent candidate for state superintendent of public instruction, won with 52.4 percent of the vote in the face of so-called education reformers and philanthropists spending big bucks for his opponent.

So, how do we build on the “operationally liberal” instincts of voters who claim to be philosophically conservative? That indeed is the question. We need good candidates and good messaging.

In the midst of the post-election gloom, RTCer Stewart Cohen spent the day after the election assessing our rapidly growing UFT retiree political campaign activities on the West Coast of Florida and reports that while he had five hosts for home phone banks this year, he already has six commitments for 2016.

That’s the indomitable UFT spirit: Dust yourself off and get ready for the next round.