Well, with the majority of the results in there are a few things certain about the 2006 mid-term elections: it was a very good day to be a Democrat.

The Democrats won 28 seats in the House and will likely win 2 more, doubling the 15 they needed to regain control of the House.

In the Senate, the Democrats have won 4 seats, they won a fifth in Virginia, but as the margin is only 8000 votes, there will be an automatic recount before a winner is declared, and they have a razor thin lead (1600 votes) in Montana, with the counting not yet completed. So it is pretty reasonable to say the Democrats have 5 seats in the Senate, with the real possibility of a sixth, which would give them control of both houses.

In addition, the Democrats picked up 6 new Governorships, putting the Democratic governors again in the majority.

Though it is not yet certain, it is looking like the Democrats repeated the feat of the Republicans in 1994, in that NO democratic incumbents were defeated: that shows clearly that this was not an 'anti-incumbent' tide as some conservatives had asserted, but pretty clearly an anti-Bush jr tide.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/

1.Though all politics are local, it seems clear from exit polling that the Iraq war and the war on terror were important issues, yet these issues did NOT favour the Republicans as has been the standard.

Given what could be seen as a clear mandate against the Iraq war, will this and the Democratic control of one (or both) houses significantly alter how Bush Jr conducts the war in Iraq?

2. Nancy pelosi has already stated openly she will not be 'going after' Bush Jr as the new House majority leader, but that is all. Some on the right have speculated a wave of investigations into Iraq and the Bush Jr government, Rumsfeld in particular.

Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?

3. The big story here has been the Republican's loss of the nation's confidence on terror and war issues, AND the loss of support from a percentage of the Evangelicals. This election also saw the defeat of most of what could be considered 'Moderate' republicans.

What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?


Bonus: Did this election set anyone up or knock anyone down for 2008 Presidential ambitions?
What does this mean for the future of the Republican party




As an aside: Rush Limbaugh has already cried electoral foul on his webpage, accusing the Democrats of voting for the elderly and the confused by 'assisting' them on the complicated new machines.

What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?
If they take this loss as a sign that they have strayed from core conservative values, then a rebuilding and reflecting process should begin. The Republican party is no longer the party if fiscal restraint and smaller government. If they wish to lure back many moderates and conservative Libertarians, they must realize that many in those two groups don't view the Republicans as any different than the Democrats. Hopefully, last night will knock some reality in them, as only a loss could.

Limbaugh aside, I don't think we'll be seeing any Republicans suffering from PEST, as some Democrats did after 2002.

Well, my predictions were 100% wrong. But affirmative action was eliminated in Michigan so I take solace in that.

I've reviewed Pelosi's "100 hour agenda" and frankly, most (if not all ) of it is dead on arrival. The democrats ran for 6 years on a "Bash Bush" platform. Protesting is easy. Being a critic is easy. Finding fault is easy. But getting things done is hard.

I remind the people in this forum that when Clinton first won in 1992, he had democrat majorities in both the house and senate. After his first 2 years, his popularity was in the 40% range and the people threw out the democrat majorities in both houses. Newt Gingrich came in with his "contract for America" and Clinton had new hope. He successfully ran against the republicans for the next 6 years and increased his popularity, in spite of his impeachment, sex harassment suit, and rape charges. One party control of both branches of government usually doesn't work out well. There is nobody to "blame" and the party out of power can concentrate all of their resources on attack, criticize, fault finding, undermining, and obstructing. It's different when one is in power as the democrats will find. I think that some republicans RELISH the thought of filibustering each far left democrat agenda item that comes down the pike.

Will the democrats "investigate" people? Probably. And it will backfire. I've seen John Conyers in Michigan for many years and he will NOT go down well with the American public at large. He'll be a lightning rod for republicans like Delay was for democrats.

What does this mean for the GOP? I'm not sure. Short-term, the influence of "moderate" republicans like McCain and Guiliani is enhanced. So are the presidential prospects of Mitt Romney.

The war was the big issue this time around. But answers aren't easy. Pelosi promotes an "exit strategy" which is Washington-speak for "cut and run". That won't fly. Rumsfeld will probably be the fall guy in the Bush administration. It's one thing to run "against the war". It's entirely different to find a way forward in that extremely difficult situation. The democrats have offered no answers to date other than cut, run, surrender, and pretend radical Islamism is not a threat to our nation.

There may be an upside for Bush who may be able to form a workable coalition with moderate democrats like Webb, Lieberman, Obama, and others. The far left democrats were the loudest but they will realize in 6-9 months that their party has been diminished, not enhanced.

The pendulum in American politics has swung yet again. It will inevitably swing back again.

Now people like me can focus on finding fault with the democrats which should be a fairly easy proposition.

Well, looking around a lot of the races, you can see that Libertarians candidates single-handedly cost Republicans several seats in the House and a few in the Senate...Which is great news. If the Republican Party has any brains it will realize that it has lost the libertarian and small gov't conservative vote which should usher sweeping changes in Republican political thought. That having been said, this election was certainly a big step forward for Blue Dog Democrats and certainly not much of a victory for liberal Democrats, so in that way Republicans could essentially say "we're socially conservative, and that's what the voters want" and stay the course with their authoritarian policies. I'm hoping here is a libertarian rennaisance within the Party but I firmly believe that their social conservatism will not change because of this election.

No, as I said, this was a huge win for socially conservative Democrats [who combine all of the pleasure we have of being regulated socially with the joy of economic regulation ], moderate Republicans are no more attractive to most of this country now than they were 48 hours ago.

CP

Given what could be seen as a clear mandate against the Iraq war, will this and the Democratic control of one (or both) houses significantly alter how Bush Jr conducts the war in Iraq?

Though I am hoping there are changes there as well, I am not sure this is simply a mandate on Iraq. The secrecy, the patriot act, the insistence on supporting a secretary of defense who has lost the confidence of the public and an almost arrogant feel of the administrations responses to questions about strategy, policy, and more are all responsible for this.

What I hope this is a mandate on is that America no longer wants to blindly trust. Prove to us this is working or not working. Explain to us why your's is the best approach.

Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?

If the Democrats (or the Democratics if you prefer ) go down this road it will be seen as a retaliatory witch-hunt by many in America. There is a opportunity here, let's hope they do not squander it on vindictive attacks that serve no one but themselves. If there are any investigations they will have to be clearly needed, supported by facts and an honest sense of urgency or they will likely backfire.

What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?

This is a tough question. I would love to believe that this will me a shift back to the fiscal conservative, personal liberty platform of the past. However, I believe the leadership of the party will spin this as an anti-incumbent, and low republican turnout issue. Neither appears to be true. However, it is not like we haven't seen politicians (from any party) blame nonexistent causes for their problems before.

1. Given what could be seen as a clear mandate against the Iraq war, will this and the Democratic control of one (or both) houses significantly alter how Bush Jr conducts the war in Iraq?

I somehow don't see how it will change the way Bush and crew are conducting the war. This administration will undoubtedly continue for the remaining two years with an air of superiority, arrogance and self-certainty in the absolute accuracy of their decision making abilities. Regardless of how the American people voted.
Call it cynical, but the past 6 years of this administration gives a pretty good idea of what it thinks of the American people and our opinions. Especially when one considers the "win" in 2000, and the squeak by win in 2004. In both cases, Bush and crew took their marginal victories as being an absolute mandate to embark us on a far right wing agenda.
So.. no.. nothing will change.

2. Nancy pelosi has already stated openly she will not be 'going after' Bush Jr as the new House majority leader, but that is all. Some on the right have speculated a wave of investigations into Iraq and the Bush Jr government, Rumsfeld in particular.

Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?

I really think the Dems have learned a lesson from the past 12 years. At least that is my hope. This is an opportunity to show the American people what their true colors are, and what direction, if given more power, they will lead us in.
Even though I would cheer an investigation into the Bush administration, it would be bad for the country and would not be beneficial to the Dems overall. So I truly believe the Dems are smarter than I and will refrain from such a divisive move.

3. The big story here has been the Republican's loss of the nation's confidence on terror and war issues, AND the loss of support from a percentage of the Evangelicals. This election also saw the defeat of most of what could be considered 'Moderate' republicans.

What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?
It should mean that they have been slapped back to reality, but I think it will take a another loss in 2008 for them (just as it took the Dems 12 years) to learn that an extreme agenda is not what the American voters want.
So.. in the near term.. it only means they will throw more money and negative, slanderous campaign ads at the problem. If they take heavy losses again in 2008, then maybe, just maybe they will reassess their positions and move closer to center, and start speaking TO us, instead of AT us.

Bonus: Did this election set anyone up or knock anyone down for 2008 Presidential ambitions?
What does this mean for the future of the Republican party?

Well, it sure took out Allen of Va. as a possible Republican golden boy for 2008. If what I believe will happen, happens, and Bush maintains his elitist, better than the american people, can do nothing wrong attitude, then the Republican party is in for a very rough time in the coming years.

Ummm...Republican talking points for breakfast! Yummy!

The Democratic Party has been "diminished, not enhanced?" Wow, talk about your tortured logic. Welcome to lordhelmet's Bizzaro World where the Earth isn't just flat, it's cubed.

Man, you have got to stop watching so more Fox News! Though I WILL be tuning in to Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity to hear them whine about Nancy Pelosi's "San Francisco values."

Wake up and smell the election returns, homey. The Democrats didn't lose one incumbent in their Senate races. Mike DeWine? History. Rick Santorum? Gonzo. Lincoln Chafee? Unemployed. Jim Talent?
Sent back down to the minor leagues.

George Allen Junior and Conrad "Mr." Burns are both on life support gasping for their last breaths. They should both concede they're roadkill and get out of the way of future Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

And special giggles for the absolute beatdown put on Katherine "Cruella deVille" Harris in Florida.

Bob Ney's seat? Democrat. Mark "NAMBLA" Foley's seat? Democrat. Tom DeLay's seat? Democrat. Throw that log on the fireplace right next to the 27 Republican seats that switched to the Dems. Oh, and no
Democratic House incumbents lost their seat. Not too shabby.

This was a national referendum on how poorly George Bush and the Republican Party have conducted the war in Iraq. 104 American soldiers killed in October and 21 more in the first seven days of November. Enough is enough and the voters want a new strategy. "Stay the course" is not a strategy and it was completely rejected and repudiated. The American people want a plan to get us out of Iraq, not right-wing rhetoric and spin.

If Lord Helmet thinks it's a positive to have the GOP back in opposition party status, I am more than happy to have them there. Out of luck, out of time and out of power. Sounds like a plan to me.

Democratic Party over here! Democratic Party over there!

I will have to agree with LH on one thing- they should learn a lesson from the republicans- they came in to power with a message of change and fiscal restraint in 1994- and accomplished NOTHING since then in regards to fiscal policy. In fact, Clinton was the fiscal conservative, while they were going around trying to cut penny ante stuff and not adressing the hard issues. I have no fondness nor am I in any way loyal to democrats. I just think the republicans were incompetant idiots.

What LH said- for 40 years, republicans were nothing but an opposition party that had a president on and off- all of them simply horid since Eisenhower. But they didn't do to badly as an opposition party. Democrats took America through it's Golden age and created some of the greatest statesmen America will ever have, while Republicans, to gain power, sold it's soul to the religious right, and dumped the libertarian fiscal restraint types like bad garbage.

I am saddened to see the social conservative dems win, but I don't think they will be as rabid as the repubs on this one, and just play some lip service, and IF the dems start tearing apart GWs more stupid and incompetant programs- they won't need an investigation- all they will need to do is look more competant then the idiot in chief- NOt a big job mind you -

But they will have to lead- NOT investigations, but lead us post GW, and he and the repubs that were fired made a mighty big mess of things- lets see how they handle it in the next two years- they do it well, we will probably see a veto proof majority and a dem prez in 2008. Moderation on all things and fiscal restraint will win the day I hope.

The only way they can make the investigation thing work, is to grab on to something he did blantantly wrong- I am thinking lying about the cost of the medicaid drug bill will be the best start- first, the dems need to overhaul that nasty piece of stinking pile of human waste, and while they are at it, as they reveal more and more what is wrong, they can kind of ramp up the message that GW lied about it's cost- and let the loud chorus of "hang em" make them start the investigation trial.

And for Cheney- it is easy- Haliburton, Ken Lay and the energy commision should the public accept an investigation of him- though, I would probably even start there- Cheney is a scumbag, comes off like a scumbag, talks and acts like a scumbag, he is easy to hate, he is easy to target- that is who I would go after first- and Rove next!

But they would have to do that as an ASIDE from doing the nations bidding- they will have to bide thier time, get some real biz done, or, if they can't get it done from Republican strategy of blocking work from getting done- I don't know if they have a Byrd to do this- but if they can lay it on the republicans- then they will go places quick with that, repubs are already seen as the problem, won't take much to kick it over the rest of the way. But they need to be seen as competant, doing the biz of goverment competantly and fairly, and they can have carte' blanche', I hope, of putting this admin in jail, where they belong.

While I share your enthusiam, the only person I was sorry to see go was Linc Chaffee of Rhode Island. He seemed like a genuinly good and decent, very intelligent, humble person. If only he switched his party affiliation a year ago, he would have gotten 70 percent of the vote since Rhode Islanders love him. They were just too fed up with Republican majority.

And, this weasel Lieberman got his job back...

But overall, it's a very good day !

funny about that- I liked Chaffee as well- I am most comfortable with moderate republicans- in fact, I will always vote for a mod republican, fiscal conservative, any day over anything but libertarian. Too bad there.

Don't worry, lieberman will get his at some point, especially if he keeps cozying up to evil like he does!

LH, you are the type of republican that has got "us" (meaning, I'm a conservative looking in from the outside) into this mess.

You stay in denial and divert the real problems away from Bush and his ex-followers (many got fired last night thankfully) by attacking democrats. It fits you like a warm blanket, but solves nothing.

If you and people like you would have demanded principled policies from Bush and the republican party, Pelosi would be as mostly irrelevant as she was yesterday.

I'm not the only republican that went out and fired most of my party yesterday - it took tons of people like me that have true core conservatives principles. I hope one day you too (and a few others on here that call themselves republicans) will find them.

Though I am certainly pleased to see the Republicans defeated, and Bush take a rolled-up newspaper to the nose, I think it is unfortunate that AMONG the repoublicans, the biggest losers will be the moderate Republicans. Mike Dewine was about as moderate as they come, he lost. So did Chafee and many of his peers. I am afraid after this the Republicans will lurch to the far right again in an attempt to 'reclaim their base' and thus alienate the centre.

One thing I found very interesting, was a review of the ballot initiatives. 5 States proposed one initiative or another to restrict access to abortion, be it actual bans on Abortion (South dakota) or forcing parental notification. Every single initiative that tried to in ANY way restrict access to abortion was defeated, even in states that remained predominantly Red. That is an interesting sign, a sign of the number of moderate, centrist republicans there are, and a sign I am pretty confident the GOP will utterly ignore.




Mixing fantasy with reality again LH? Nobody, and I mean Nobody among the Democrats advocated surrender or pretending Radical islam is not a threat. Hey, do you think silly attempt to distort the policy of another party might be one of the reasons why the Republicans just got taken out behind the woodshed?

To quote Kerry (Not always a good idea, but a good one here): George Bush has a cut-and-run policy in Afghanistan, and a stand-still-and-lose policy in Iraq. An exit strategy is not Washington-speak for cut-and-run, it means an exit strategy, something Bush Jr does not have. For heaven's sake LH, the country just voted on Bush Jr's handling of the war, and both Democrats AND republicans condemnned it.



Yeah, that 28-30 point turnover and control of the house really diminished them. Good thing you are here to point out to the Democrats how badly they really did.

In fact, it is the Centre in the US that swung to the Democrats and abandoned Bush Jr, and it is the Centre that decided they would rather trust Democratic control of one and quite possibly both houses over letting Bush Jr wage his private wars without a plan or strategy for the future.




NOW you can? LH, thats all you have ever done in your entire lifespan on this board, regardless of wheither the 'faults' are real or not.

Given what could be seen as a clear mandate against the Iraq war, will this and the Democratic control of one (or both) houses significantly alter how Bush Jr conducts the war in Iraq?

I think it depends on how the Senate ends up. If the Democrats get the House only, essentially the Republicans will still have a working majority in power (Senate + President). That balance switches if the Democrats get the Senate. Bush seemed to be opening the door up to change on his stance on the war pre-election, though, so I expect to see some change in policy regardless. Even Republicans had been pushing for this.

Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?

Again, I think this might depend on how the Senate works out. Hopefully, Pelosi will stick to what she said and not go down that path. I don't think anyone would come out ahead if investigations are pushed for, including the Democrats.

3. The big story here has been the Republican's loss of the nation's confidence on terror and war issues, AND the loss of support from a percentage of the Evangelicals. This election also saw the defeat of most of what could be considered 'Moderate' republicans.

What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?

I found it quite interesting that in the sweep that occurred in the Northeast, it was primarily conservative Democrats over moderate Republicans. On the Republican side, this is an interesting dichotomy. The Republican's stance on certain issues (WOT, and various evangelical issues) is cited as what caused the party problems, yet those that were swept out were the ones closest to the Democrats on those issues (ie, moderate Republicans). So, I expect that will have an impact on moderate Republicans, particularly in the Northeast. But, do they need to become more moderate, or move farther to the right? Given the general trend to the liberal side in that area, I suspect the answer might have to be to become more moderate, at least on certain issues, but perhaps more conservative on others (maybe crime?). Guiliani would probably be the role model of stances that need to be taken.


Bonus: Did this election set anyone up or knock anyone down for 2008 Presidential ambitions?

There were certainly a couple Republicans who are at least moved down the list. Allen and Santorum, notably. The trend in the Northeast might move some others (who???) up the list. I'm not sure winning the Presidency in 2008 completely without the Northeast is even possible--that's an awful lot of electoral votes to have to make up.

What does this mean for the future of the Republican party

I'm with DTOM and DR in that hopefully it will bring it back towards its fiscal conservative and individual liberty values...but not necessarily optimistic. Sixth year elections historicallly feature a change in Congress, so leadership might simply chalk things up to that. With any luck, the situation in Iraq will also have reached some resolution by 2008, which would also probably lead Republican leadership to overlook the results of this election. There seemed to be, in general, a remarkable absence of platforms from either party in this election...so it doesn't seem like either party really has much going for it moving forward. I think whichever party corrects that the best will likely win out in 2008.

DTOM and DR, I'm not too opitimistic about the Republicans turning a more libertarian leaf, as I said, the new Democrats in the House are largely socially conservative, and a socially conservative Democrat is exactly the same thing as a Republican nowadays. I don't think voters are tired of heavy regulation in all aspects of their lives, I think they've just grown tired of seeing Seamus Liar R-CT on C-SPAN. I think it also underlines just how unlikely it is for a libertarian/centrist Republican like Giuliani to do well in a national election.

CP

I'm not going to cry crocodile tears over Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee. Chafee was invited in the past to switch to the Democrats, but he declined. He could have gone the independent route as Jim Jeffords did when he realized this was not the Republican Party he had known.

Chafee couldn't change the Republican Party, didn't want to join the Democratic Party and didn't want to go the independent route. Now he's out of a job. Given a choice between a genuine Democrat in Sheldon Whitehouse and a Democrat-Lite, the voters chose the real deal. I don't have a problem with that.

If moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species, they had better assert themselves instead of allowing themselves to be pimped by the right-wing during national conventions. In Ohio, the defeat of Ken Blackwell in his run for governor can be partially attributed to the fact that he was seen as too beholden to evangelicals and frightened other Republicans by being too conservative.

The voters have chosen to restore some semblance of checks and balances to Congress. Even if the Democrats don't win both the Montana and Virginia races, there is a strong possibility of a 50-50 split in the Senate and Dick Cheney spending a lot of his time breaking ties.

To answer a few of Vermillion's questions:

Did this election set anyone up or knock anyone down for 2008 Presidential ambitions?

Well, I wouldn't expect to see George Allen's name on any Republican primary ballots in 2008. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stumped for a lot of successful candidates and I'm sure they have every one of their names in a Blackberry somewhere.

For Bill Frist I don't see how his ex-Senator status enhances his chances. Rudy Giuliani might start looking a lot better to moderates. John McCain had better start backing away from his fond embrace of the Bush Administration and figure out where he stands because the far-right is never going to trust him and the middle of the road types may start a more decisive (and younger) option.

You went out and fired the GOP and blame ME for electing democrats?

Man, talk about tortured logic.

The democrat strategy was clear and concise. Attack, attack, attack. They started in January of 2001 when they declared Bush "illegitimate" and they stopped for about 2 seconds after 9/11 before they declared that either "he knew" or "he did nothing to stop it". It was bash Bush all the time for 6 years and it paid off for them... finally, after 6 years.

The democrats proved that if one forgets about the country at large and focuses on winning an election by slamming the opposition, in spite of the national circumstances, whether we are at war, whether there is an Islamist threat, etc, you can win elections.

Now we'll listen to the democrats talk of bipartisan cooperation and "all working together".... of course only if we adopt their agenda. This is in the face of their 6 years of "just say no", filibusters, obstructionism, and outright undermining our troops in a war in order to win political points. Only after they win a congressional majority do they decide to become Americans again. Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.

We deserve the government we elect. The people have spoken and they've chosen the easy way out. They don't like Iraq. Ok. Cut, run, and surrender? Is that what the people REALLY want? We'll see.

This election was a victory for Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and Jihadists everywhere. I expect that terrorists will be emboldened by this and step up attacks, not reduce them. This election did not make "America safer".

I look to the GOP to indulge in a little payback against Pelosi and Co. Her "agenda" is dead on arrival. A congress that does nothing is better than an ultra-left socialist driven congress.

You are unbelievable.



Firstly, I think you will find the unity behind the president after 9/11 lasted a lot longer than 2 secind, I also think you will find it is Bush Jr who wasted that opportunity by essentially sidelining the war on terror, and going after Iraq.

Secondly, even if your exaggeration about the Democrats doing NOTHING but attack the sitting President were true... hmmm that sound familiar. When was the last time the opposition spent 100% of its time doing nothing but attack, attack attack on every issue imaginable? Oh Right, the Republicans against Clinton!




Oh my GOD! IGNORING the Islamicist threat? IGNORING natoional Circumstances? These were the top issues that people voted on, and it was the utter bungling of these issues that got the Republicans kicked out of power! Have you so quickly forgotten that according to the IISS and the CIA, Al qaida is stringer because of Bush Jr's actions? Have you forgotten that according to the Combined US Intelligence netweorks, the US is LESS safe than it was before 9/11?

The singl worst thing that could possibly have happened to the US in the face of the Islamicist threat is George Bush Jr, and people finally realised that. They voted Democrat BECAUSE of the war, not despite it.



So childish insults is the route you chose to take? You know what does not pass the smell test? You calling all Democrats 'Not Americans'. If anyone here is 'not a real American' sir, it is you, who consistently refuses to accept the basic reality of the failure (ANY failure) of your personal favourite administration, blaming everything on the Democrats. You write this poison pen letter and then have the audacity to challenge the patriotism of OTHERS? Shame on you sir.

The Republicans under Bush Jr. had unchallenged rule for 6 years, President, House and Senate, and look what state the country is in now.




Bush Jr made the US less safe. That is not questionable, nor debatable, it is the conclusion of the US combined intelligence agencies. Period. His reign has weakened the US in every measurable way. You think the Democrats can do worse than he has already done?

As for the Democrats coming to power being a 'victory for Bin Laden and Jihadists everywhere', I'm not going to answer that infantile, sore-loser, hate filled comment, I'll just report it to the Mods instead.

What do you think they could do, LH? Create legislation and have them brought to a vote? LOL!

For all this whining about how little the dems have done (which is far less damage then the repubs), you act as if the dems have a say in the matter. The republicans set the agenda, allow whatever legislation they wish to be brought up, and control all the puppet strings. And then you fault the democrats for using the only tool they have - complaining so at least America has a clue.

I don't like it either, but this is the price paid when Bush has divided the country (and his party) as bad as he has. There is very little cooperation between the democrats and republicans in the current Congress and when finally, someone like the Gang of 14 come along, they get hammered by people like you.

LH, the respublicans had power of the house, senate, and White House. The dems had no power to do anything except enjoy the ride and voice their opposition to the complete ball of steaming crap Bush handed America.

NRO had a post I thought summed it up perfectly:



Indeed. Let's find out if the party who's only tool is fear is the only game in town.

Given what could be seen as a clear mandate against the Iraq war, will this and the Democratic control of one (or both) houses significantly alter how Bush Jr conducts the war in Iraq?

Not in the least. This was not a mandate against the war, but against how the war is being prosecuted. The problem with altering that prosecution is that the Bush administration is both incompetent and corrupt - and that is manifested in how the Iraq war has been conducted. You can reject corruption (should you have the will, which this administration obviously doesn't), but you can't learn competence - and this administration couldn't organize a frat party in a brewery. And it is on the basis of trust and credibility (or the gross lack thereof) that many people cast their votes. "Shows what I know" indeed.

Besides, the Bush administration didn't give a damn about Congress yesterday and they don't give a damn about Congress today. One of the overriding throughlines of this administration's tenure has been the negation of Congressional oversight and the elimination of their own accountability in order to establish a unitary executive. There is no possible way that goal will change one iota. If anything, the Bush administration will become even more entrenched in their autocracy - and a lame duck Bush administration could be more criminally destructive than ever.

Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?

No one. They're Democrats. Trust them to do the right thing? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This was clearly more of a mandate than the Bush administration ever had. Every analyst put before a camera over the past couple of weeks has characterized this election as a judgement of the Bush administration, its prosecution of the Iraq war, and the tacit support of both by Congress. If the Democratic Party is to have any future, they need to accept that mandate. They now have the urgent responsibility to start undoing some of the massive damage that has been done to this country by its leadership over the past five years. I fear they won't.

What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?

It bodes well for the Republicans in 2008. Everything that has gone wrong with this country over the past five years will now be blamed on the next two years of Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives - and Americans are credulous enough to buy it. The Republicans now have a strategy for the 2008 election - while the Democrats remain as clueless as ever. They won these seats by default - because they were the only alternative, not because they actually had substance. The only real edge they have is that the Democratic Party is marginally less corrupt than the GOP. They need to start repudiating "Republican values" - as the rest of America has - and start effectively promoting their own.

Did this election set anyone up or knock anyone down for 2008 Presidential ambitions?

It set Mitt Romney up and knocked George Allen down. It may also smooth the path for the candidacy of someone like Rudy Giuliani. The Democrats still have no viable candidate for the 2008 presidential election.

What does this mean for the future of the Republican party?

There's a possibility that they will become as aimless as the Democratic Party. I see a lot of infighting within the GOP and a lot of future Republican candidates focusing more on local politics. This could be a good thing - but for every Republican that moderates his or her policies (and maybe even possibly embraces real conservative values), I suspect there will one or more that become even more entrenched in pandering to minority concerns.

Rather than concentrating on what is best for the United States, its citizens, and the system of government that had served it well for 211 years, there are clearly some Republicans that see the future of the US as nothing more than an opportunity to "focus on finding fault with the democrats". This is not, perhaps, surprising, but it is still desperately sad. And it is an insult to those who are motivated by defending their country from a serious assault on our Constitutional government to be characterized - even implicitly - as being motivated by "finding fault" with anyone on the basis of anything so trivial as their party affiliation.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. I'm predicting it will get much, much worse and republicans will get hit hard again.

Remember all those investigations, inquiries, and reports that the republicans keep sitting on? Waiting until after elections and then still never producing the reports? National security claims? Obfuscation? Etc, etc, etc?

Big mistake. The dems will get these things out in the open and I predict (although I could be wrong) what they've been hiding will be devastating.

In the next election cycle, the dems will have a huge "best interest" issue by proving the republicans put themselves over the best interest of the people. I doubt the impeachment idea can gain much traction without 60 dems in the senate, but the house can further punish the republicans by revealing what they've been hiding for so long.

It hasn't gotten ugly yet. This will not bode well for the republicans for several election cycles.

A good day for democrats indeed. No matter how you slice this one, the Dems should be bouncing over this estatic victory. As of now, the Democrats, with certainity, own the house and are probably, if narrowly, going to take the senate as well.

Let the subpoenas fly. Theres no doubt this democratic congress will use investigative power to bulster claims of corruption. Every conspircay theory about the war in Iraq you've heard will fully be brought to light, for better or worse to the Bush administration. That includes no-bid contracts, use (or perhaps, fabrication) of intelligence and coordination with special interests.

I feel particulary bad for the Bush adminstration. Thus far, Bush has cruised by on a congress that has been mostly amiable towards him. Indeed, he hasn't used his veto power once. But the tide has changed, and soon Bush will be looking for friends in a sea of unfamiliar faces. Every failure about the war in Iraq will be examined and crossed examined in excruciating detail and will probably be in the news until the 2008 elections. If I had to guess, I would say that, as of today (assuming the dems win the senate), the Bush jr. legacy has died.

Republicans have reason to be somewhat optimistic, considering. What was most striking to me were the narrow margins democrats slided on to beat Republican incumbants. Generally, traditional knowledge has been that elections tend to favor incumbants, but I think the reverse was true for this mid-term election. Some republicans simply went down to the tide. I was extremely shocked upon hearing that Jim talent, a scandal free conservative, lost to democratic challenger McCaskill. This demonstrates that common knowledge perhaps is invalid; that it was somewhat sexy this election to run for change (Against the war, economy, etc.).

(To be fair though, previous election history shows that talent had just slid by in previous elections).

Perhaps what America really likes is a divided government. As a democratic government gave to a 1994 Republican swing, so too did the republicans fall before democrats running for change. I might even go so far as to suggest that perhaps neither Republican or Democratic advertising has as much effect as we think. America will typically gravitate towards a centrist viewpoint and generally favor separation of power.

In summation: Nothing lasts forever. This democratic government bound to collapse at some point, and the rather weak victories over incumbants (even with the tide) suggests that democrats might lose control sooner rather than later.

Look at the margin the democrats own the house with, 33 seats. Its a sizable amount, enough to lose some of the conservative democrats and still push legislation through. I agree with you though, that Liberal democrats can forget about social policies like strict gun legislation. However, I suspect some moderately liberal reforms will ultimately come to pass. On economic issues, like social security and the minimum wage, Democrats will almost certainly pass all their desired legislation.

Anyway, switching subjects, if democrats thought they were euphoric enough already, this will launch them straight into heaven: Drudge Report: Rumsfeld to Resign

That is certainly sure, but as i said, on social issues, these new Democrats will be almost indistinguishable from Republicans. My only point in in saying that is that I believe that most Americans simply voted Republicans out without really rejecting their social ideology. They voted out corruption [for now] and Iraq, not social conservatism. That was my only point.

CP

I'd like to think you're right. You're clearly right about what has not yet been revealed (at least officially), but I'm not convinced that the Democrats have the political will to risk looking "too aggressive". They have not been known for the sturdiness of their spine of late. Besides, investigating those that have done the damage is not as important as repairing that damage - and that will require even more will. When you can demonstrate the existence of such will within the Democratic Party, I'll be a bit more optimistic.

A little cheese to go with that whine, lordhelmet? You've always been conservative. Now you're just being shrill.

There's two ways you can look at the results of this election. You can be angry and bitter and heap scorn and ridicule on the millions of American citizens who voted their conscience. That's your present knee-jerk reaction and I find it interesting that you seem to be all alone here with all the rancor.

OR....

You can try to find an opportunity within the GOP meltdown and do what Hobbes, Dayton Rocker, Dontreadonme and others have suggested. Get back to being the party of national security, fiscal responsibility and conservative principles and get away from being the sock puppet of lobbyists, special interests and wedge issue politics.

I know how you're feeling right now. Many of the self-described Democrats on felt exactly the same way after John Kerry crashed and burned in 2004. One of the board's most passionate conservatives who no longer posts here summed up the challenge the President and Republican dominated Congress faced.



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...showtopic=8481#

Aquilla was right then and he is right now. You can slander the patriotism and intellect of the majority of American voters, but all your anger won't change the facts of the election. President Bush wasn't happy with the results either, but he knows he's going to have to man up and accept the judgment of the voters.

I'm sure Bush and the Republicans will lick their wounds and swallow the bitter pill of the 2006 elections and get busy on 2008. Bush talks all the time about "the consequences of failure." Is the Republican Party as down now as the Democrats were in 2004? Yeah, but they can come back from this especially if they heed the words of people like former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey.

How can the Republicans respond? The leadership must remember that the modern conservative movement is a fusion of social and fiscal conservatives united in their belief in limited government. The party must keep both in the fold.

Republicans also need to get back to being the party of big ideas. The greatest threat to American prosperity today is a catastrophic fiscal meltdown resulting from long-term entitlements. Democrats have already lined up behind the solution of raising taxes and reducing benefits.

But Americans want more freedom and choice in education, health care and retirement security. Republicans -- too busy dreaming up wedge issues to score cheap points against Democrats -- have lost sight of their broad national agenda.

Republicans will have to manage their own disappointment. Fingers will be pointed, and various villains will be fashioned out of recent events. But the plain fact is that Republicans have been setting the stage for this outcome for nearly a decade, running from themselves and their own principles. We will not find ourselves by conforming to the status quo, but by returning to our Reagan roots.

When we act like us we win. When we act like them we lose. Let's win. link

Some Republicans are ready to get back to the hard work of rebuilding their party and becoming a viable option to the Democrats. They see potential opportunity in the present adversity.

What about you lordhelmet?

Fair enough, but I wouldn't feel too safe with socially conservative democrats as they are far the minority within the democratic party. Becoming alienated from the party is a no mans land treaded by few in congress, and I suspect you will see left of center social legislation come out of this congress regardless of ones affliation to conservative ideaology. If those conservative democrats want to see any of their legislation pass, they will have to play the game, hold their nose, and vote with a left leaning democratic majority.

I completely agree with you about the votes. However, a conservative leaning America does not neccessitate a conservative leaning congress.

Perhaps this point, for the moment, is mute though. Bush is more than likely to start flexing some of that veto power and democrats certainly dont have the numbers needed to push through a veto.

Small aside, but the Montana race has been called for Tester, the Democratic challenger, apparently the gap widened up as the last few polls were counted. That means if Webb survives the recount in Virginia, which is likely considering the 8000 vote gap, the Democrats have gained control of both houses.

I though that fact might influence how people address the questions posed here...

One thing that will be really interesting is to see what impact, if any, this has on immigration politics in Congress. Will the Representatives still be taking a fairly hard line, if enough of these "Blue Dog" Democrats show an interest in insisting on enforcement first? One can only hope.

To start with, this is a good day for Democrats, and becase we now have balanced rather than unitary government, it is a good day for the nation. I don’t wish to rub it in, so, I’ll stop there.

1.Though all politics are local, it seems clear from exit polling that the Iraq war and the war on terror were important issues, yet these issues did NOT favour the Republicans as has been the standard.

This election was decided on a number of factors. It was a referendum on Bush. He now has no political capital. Iraq was important as was corruption. I think the stem cell referendum helped the Democrat in Missouri.

Given what could be seen as a clear mandate against the Iraq war, will this and the Democratic control of one (or both) houses significantly alter how Bush Jr conducts the war in Iraq?

I think the Democrats will embrace the Baker/Hamilton report. This will give Bush cover to slowly redeploy troops.

2. Nancy pelosi has already stated openly she will not be 'going after' Bush Jr as the new House majority leader, but that is all. Some on the right have speculated a wave of investigations into Iraq and the Bush Jr government, Rumsfeld in particular.

Rumsfeld’s resignation takes some of the pressure off, but not much.

Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?

Given the secrecy of Dick Cheney’s energy bill and the high handed tactics used by Tom DeLay on the Medicare prescription drug bill, I would think these two areas - along with Iraq - are open. Investigations will be delayed. Pelosi and the Democrats will give the apprarane of trying to cooperate with Bush. the president is too stubbon for that to work. He will suddenly find his veto pen. Maybe it's under his desk where he thought WMDs might be hiding.

3. The big story here has been the Republican's loss of the nation's confidence on terror and war issues, AND the loss of support from a percentage of the Evangelicals. This election also saw the defeat of most of what could be considered 'Moderate' republicans.

What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?

It means that Karl Rove is not ivincible or inflliable. It’s like to paraphrase the poem, “All is dark in Republicanvile. Mighty Karl has struck out.”


Bonus: Did this election set anyone up or knock anyone down for 2008 Presidential ambitions?
What does this mean for the future of the Republican party

Gratefully, George Allen is toast. Mitt Romney may be the beneficiary.



Consider the source. Rush Limbaugh must off his meds or back on them. He’s angered Parkinson’s patients and probably AARP. The more this ugly bunny gets publicity the worse he looks.

Congratulations USA we have our country back as well to the world. While I am sadden to see Lincoln Chaffee to be one of the Republican Senators to be replaced like nighttimer said he could have switched parties or went indy but figured he could work from within, and to me the head count right now is more important to stop this administration from continuously running out of control without being checked.

Given what could be seen as a clear mandate against the Iraq war, will this and the Democratic control of one (or both) houses significantly alter how Bush Jr conducts the war in Iraq?

This is a hard question just because no matter what there is no great answer or cure all that is going to fix Iraq no matter what anyone wants to believe, but I do believe that a redeployment around Iraq as well as working with the countries in the region to help stabilize Iraq is going to be the best we can hope for and the Iraq's neighbors have the most vested interest so they need to step up.

Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?

There definitely needs to be investigations of the administrations that the Republican lead Congress has not done. As well as, DaytonRocker has mentioned about the stuff the committees are sitting on. While that is happening the Democrats also need to use this to show they can govern responsibly and bi-partisanly as much as possible, this is there chance to show the country why the Democrats were frustrated the last 6 years when we saw what this Congress and administration was doing and we couldn't help change it.

What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?


Hopefully this means the Republicans will truly have a shift back to what their principal beliefs are supposed to be about, but from what I have seen was actually lost when Reagan actually became President and the religious right got more into the Republican party then ever before. While there are many people either at or in real life that have the true Republican Conservative beliefs I haven't seen it within this Congress or Administration except for once in a blue moon.

I want to thank all the true Republican conservatives at that want their party back and in doing so voted against their party the country owes you one.

Here's a little video of Don Henley singing Leonard Cohen's "Democracy" over at Andrew Sullivans site thought it was such a fitting song right now. Democracy

I would tend to disagree with that assessment. Bush's strength as governor was working with both sides to get things done. He seemed to be starting down that path pre-911, although there seemed to be more resistance there. So, I am hopeful that the two sides can figure out how to work together. Now, whether or not his advisors will allow that to happen is a whole different question. But a little humility might go a long way towards making that happen as well. At some point, cooperating has to be the politically correct tactic as well as the one best for the country...if nothing continues to change, the Republicans will not look good come 2008 either.

Given what could be seen as a clear mandate against the Iraq war, will this and the Democratic control of one (or both) houses significantly alter how Bush Jr conducts the war in Iraq?

Well, I did not get to post last night or this morning so Rumsfeld being out as Secretary of Defense can already be considered a significant change, but I do not see it that way. Rumsfeld's job hinged on the election, but the policy, or to answer the question, the way in which he conducts the war will not change. I say it for this reason; Bush was on the verge of changing course prior to the election. He was going to adopt the new strategy outlined in a pending report from Jim Baker. This report, along with the Saddam verdict, was delayed because of the election, which is to be expected. Bush knows that the war is unpopular. He also knows that "stay the course" was not working and he needed a way to transfer to another strategy without looking like he scrapped his old one. Going forward, the Democrats will not ask for any change in policy that is not already outlined by Baker's upcoming report.



Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?

With Rumsfeld gone, the next likely person would be Cheney, but they will go after Cheney through Haliburton. If anything is found there, Cheney would most definitely be investigated, but I would expect a resignation before that happened, you know, heart condition/health concerns.

I want them to investigate war profiteers vigorously. This will further expose the negligence by the Republicans if anything is found and ,hopefully, start the long steady decline of the military industrial complex.



What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?

This election was more about the economy and the failure of trickle down economics. Foreclosures were at an all time high, the housing market is a logjam, and the Dow Jones does not reflect the middle income Americans, which are starting to become more scarce than dinosaurs. All these factors are why the Republicans are on the outside looking in. This election was lost when the oil prices were at $3.00 and above. At that point, the American people had had enough. There were zero undecideds at polling time, people knew who they were voting for.

Another factor was Bush's stubbornness to raise taxes on the higher class earners. Simple economics tells you that if you increase your outflow of cash, with say, a war for example, you will also need to increase your income. Bush did not do that, and thus exposed trickle down as a failed economic policy. Whether or not we return to that policy is yet to be seen, but my hope is that the American people figure out that not raising taxes and maintaining spending is not how to run an economy or a balance a budget.

Bonus: Did this election set anyone up or knock anyone down for 2008 Presidential ambitions?
What does this mean for the future of the Republican party

This sets up a Clinton-Obama ticket. Obama and Hillary are the frontrunners and eventually, Clinton's early east coast campaigning will win her the nomination. Hillary looked invincible against her opponent. His name anyone? Exactly.

While Obama was stumping in the Midwest he has not focused his efforts on the New Hampshire area like Clinton and McCain have been doing for basically a year and a half. Her foundation is in place and Obama will not be able to overcome it. He should save himself the money and run as her VP, setting himself up for a successful run in 2016, followed by a second attempt at secession by the South.

One final note to all Republicans.
Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo!!


Just kidding.

You have a point, but the Texas Governorship is a constitutionally weak office and the Lt. Governor, Bob Bullock at the time, had all the power. I can just see Perry holdingthis weak offfice with 40% of the vote. In my opinion, this is a good reason to have a runoff.

As president, Bush has much more power than he did as Governor of Texas. After six years of working with his own party, I think this transition will be most difficult.

Edited to add:

There was never the animus between Bush and Bullock that has built up in Congressional Democrats for six long years. There will need to be some repair work before cooperation can take place. Personally, I don't like Bush any better today than I did yesterday.

Well, it looks as if the dems took the senate. There is no other way to define this election other than an old fashioned butt-whipping. The republicans can't even twist arms now to get anything to pass - the gap is too wide.

To my fellow republicans that have apologized for most of Bush's actions and defended every crappy thing Bush has done with the typical "bbbbbut Clinton", thanks for nothing. Had you stuck to conservative ideals and principles and demanded more from the clowns previously running the show, maybe we wouldn't be in this position. I've been called a RINO so many times, I should have horns growing out my forehead. Had you demanded more, maybe we would have gotten more.

And take notice that when the dems do what we know they will do, you have ZERO credibility to cry foul. Choose your words carefully because people like me will be searching for the hypocrisy certain to be in your opposition to democrat policies. See what it's like to treated as having no plans when you have no voice or power.

What goes around, comes around. Payback is hell.

Well considering that Rumsfeld is now gone I would have to say that this is a "yes". That's the easy answer. As things stand in Iraq though it appears that we are a lot closer to a pull out now than we were last year but I think a lot of this will depend on how the Iraqis react to Sadaams verdict in the long run.



I hope the answer is no one. The one thing they need to avoid at all costs right now is to be seen as a "vindictive winner". This would be worse than the Republicans being seens as "sore losers".



Good things. I really mean that. After the Republicans took control of the Presidency, Senate, AND House I disagreed with many who were relegating the Democrats to historys scrapheap. I beleive that when one party has all the power it does bad things to them. Not necessarily from a "power corrupts" side of things, all though many are pointing to the scandels that have hit the Republicans hard lately. No, what I mean is that ANY government is bad government.

I am not being anarchist when I say this as most government, especially ours, is a better alternative to no government, but I feel that governement is a necessary evil. It needs to be kept to the minimum necessary. The best way to do this is to balance government among the Parties. When one party gets too much control it will invariably start to lose that control as it has no one to blame its problems on.

As Wertz stated earlier:



I don't know that I would add the part about Americans being credulous enough to buy the blame game though. There are sheep out there, that is for sure, but I think that Americans gave the Republicans a chance to show what they could do and were disappointed. Now the Democrats get their chance. However I also think that it is the last election that counts the most. We may not be credulous but we do tend to have short memories. In two years most of the backlash that caused this turnover will have been forgotten. The pagescandall? Old news. Jack Abramoff? Who is he again? One of the biggest lighting rods in Rumsfeld will be old(er) news as well.

Nobody outside of the home states and hard core political watchers (and I include every one at in this category) cared about the Democrats scandals such as William Jefferson. His scandal doesn't tar the whole Democratic Party as the Republican scandals did because his party was not in control. Therefore Joe Shmo in Rhode Island doesn't care as much about opposing Jeffersons party because of one bad apple. However any scandals that happen in the next two years will be worse for Democrats than Republicans because now Republicans get the "we're not in control" damage control shield, and it is a powerful shield.



Well as has been said I think Allen is now a has-been in the Presidential race. This election gives McCain a chance to shine as a consensus builder. Democrats got to see him as an ally before when Republicans had all the power which helped him among them. Now Republicans get to see if he can be as effective when the he doesn't have the "without me you are nothing" card he held out to the Democrats. If he can still be seen as relevant now he has a good chance of moving up. On the other hand, Romney, being seen as an outsider, without all of the scandal splatter that has affected this election, also took a huge jump forward.

Now the Democrats lose a lot and gain a lot in this election. What they mainly lose is two things. 1. The chance to sit back and let the Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot. For all of those who see Bush as the Republicans worst enemy, he must adapt to the change and so will have to moderate some of his more polarizing stands. This is actually bad for Democrats because a lot of the middle ground will stop voting "against Bush" rather than "for Democrat". The Democrats have to stand on their own merits in the next two years and I don't know how well they can do that. They can still use Bush as an excuse if he starts Vetoing like crazy, but it won't be quite as powerful an excuse.

The second thing the lose is less tangible but still very real in my opinion. That is their underdog status. America loves an underdog. While it is not going to swing a Reagan voter to vote Mondale, I think it did swing a lot of votes Kerry's way. Popularity is going to win out every time over the underdog but when you don't have a very popular candidate some of the less decided voters are going to vote for the underdog.

Looking back at the 2004 election it is obvious that the Democrats lost their best chance of regaining the Presidency. When campaign time rolled around Bush looked invincible. So they did as they had in the past which was reward a loyal party member who had earned a chance at the presidency but really didn't have a chance while holding their stronger members for a 2008 run. They threw Kerry a bone, just like they had with Mondale and just like the Republicans had with Dole. Their thought process seemed to be: "We can't beat the incumbent so we are not going to waste a top contenders one chance on this election." The result was that a vulnerable Republican beat a weak Democratic candidate. A side effect of this was that some of the Democratic faithful now see Kerry as a legitimate candidate and he is getting more attention that should be going to candidates who are actually legitimate .

Now the Democrats are going to have to field their best against someone who won't have all the baggage of Bush and the Democrats will have a record they Republicans can attack.

Two side notes. First I hadn't thought of a Hillary, Obama ticket before but that brings up interesting possibilities. The Clinton "baggage" is falling to "short memory" syndrome and this would get to capitalize on Obamas rising star without having to worry about the "he's too young/inexperienced to be President" barriers.

Second I think Leibermans Presidential ambitions were greatly helped by this election. This doesn't mean I think he has a snowballs chance but simply that he has moved up from say, position 100 to 50 in the race. Democrats had better welcome him back to the Senate with open arms or the country as a whole will be upset. I don't mean every one in America as there will be some Democrats who will hate him as being a traitor to the party. However he won convincingly in CT and made me hopeful that the Democratic/Republican power of party is not as monolithic as it seems. One thing I have complained about before was that the primary process helps keep the lock on power at the party level rather than at the people level as those who don't register with either party simply get to choose between the two. However if this had been the case in CT Lieberman would have given up and Lamont would have won. Someone chosen by the Democrats rather than the people of CT as a whole.

If you look at the results you had the normal 5% "sheep" voters voting the party line. I can't believe that 10% of the voters thought that Schlesinger would be better than Lieberman or Lamont. Discounting the same 5% of the Democratic party line voters this means that Lieberman won by 15%. That is a huge victory for third parties. Now that the precedent has been set, others may be more willing to buck their parties to try to help bring their state the best man/woman for the job.

Sorry to get off on one of my favorite rants.

1. Given what could be seen as a clear mandate against the Iraq war, will this and the Democratic control of one (or both) houses significantly alter how Bush Jr conducts the war in Iraq?

I imagine there are meetings about this going on right now. One thing that the Republicans wanted was to bring troops back home in significant numbers before this election, and that would have helped a lot of Republican incumbents during this election season.

Apparently, the insurgency thwarted that political move. Or maybe it was Rumsfeld? I don't know, but for some reason this did not happen, and I think that this hurt the Republican campaigns.

Congressional pressure could alter how the Iraq project is conducted. It might become harder to go to the well for more money. Congress could make certain demands. Keep in mind though that Congress doesn't have any direct influence on this issue.

2. Nancy pelosi has already stated openly she will not be 'going after' Bush Jr as the new House majority leader, but that is all. Some on the right have speculated a wave of investigations into Iraq and the Bush Jr government, Rumsfeld in particular.

Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?

Don't think this is in the Democrats' minds, nor is it necessary. The Republican party melted down all on its own. The energy will be better spent with designing legislature that, even though it will be vetoed down most likely, will help define what the Democratic party wants to do with its newly found power.

3. The big story here has been the Republican's loss of the nation's confidence on terror and war issues, AND the loss of support from a percentage of the Evangelicals. This election also saw the defeat of most of what could be considered 'Moderate' republicans.

What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?

This situation always swings back and forth. Now it's the Republican party's turn to reinvent itself. How this takes shape is beyond my psychic abilities, but I do know it will be interesting.

I know what won't work: repeating the same mistakes made over the last 12 years. It might be valuable to review what changes took place in the Democratic party since 1994, and perhaps since 1980.

Bonus: Did this election set anyone up or knock anyone down for 2008 Presidential ambitions?

Don't think so, but it is still early for that election season.

One thing to notice in all this is how Wall Street reacted. The Street loves it when the federal government has true competition going on. It slows down government growth and makes for a greater level of economic stability.

President Bush has probably ordered up a gross of veto pens, so the thinking goes. That means a slower moving government, and money flows into the markets away from bills and bonds. Expect a surge in economic growth and job growth. The Democrats will take credit for this effect, but the cause is really balancing government, not any specific Democratic action. The same thing would happen if the roles were to be reversed.

Along this line of thought, it would be best to keep a Republican president and a strongly Democratic Congress in 2008. I might, for the first time in my life, vote for a Republican president in 2008 while voting mostly Democratic for Congress and local positions. But then I might not like who the Republicans run in 2008. We'll see.

It's outside the scope of this debate, but also consider local issues when thinking this through. If the Republican Party can do this, it very well might discover what went wrong. I'll give a few hints:

- Unemployment sucks, especially when those in power deny it's a problem
- Passing bankruptcy reform while high tech workers were being laid off wasn't very good timing
- Gas/oil exploration/exploitation isn't welcome in the West
- Health care needs a lot of work
- Don't mess with Social Security
- One percent is a really small minority
- Marketing techniques need constant critical review
- We're in the mood for green
- Address the true causes of problems instead of spouting ideology

And finally, you can fool the people only so long. Looks like it's about 12 years, probably a lot less now with the ubiquitous Internet that hardly anyone knew about in 1994.

I'm pretty sure Democrats have a better handle on these points. I'm also pretty sure the nostalgia for the good old days is dead.

I agree with some of this. Republicans definitely lost by NOT being conservative. Had they passed a tough immigration bill and not grown the government like drunken sailors I think the results would have been different.

Of course, now with the Dems in control, we can all look forward to higher taxes (at least according to the new chair of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel). Not a tax increase directly, but certainly the tax cuts which expire in 2010 will not be made permanent making the future uncertain for millions of taxpayers. We can look forward to illegal immigrant amnesty (since the Dems and the President agree on that stance). We can look forward to a shift in direction in Iraq and the WOT (including a possible Patriot Act change). We can look forward to higher minimum wages (in all probability) and an attempt at government health insurance. If the Democrats get cocky, we might see an impeachment attempt.

The best we can hope for is two years of gridlock.

I'm not sure what your reference is to payback. I don't recall endless investigations of Democrats in the last six years. Certainly there is a new balance of power, but nothing compelling enough to override the President's veto power (which hopefully, he will use more frequently).

Of course, I think I'm in the minority who thinks that we are better now than we were six years ago. Employment is up, the stock market is booming, terrorist cells have been disrupted both here and abroad, and things are generally good. Call me an optimist, I guess.

I've really enjoyed the comments from the extreme left and the extreme right.
What I want to stress to both sides is that you are in the minority. The majority, the real majority voted on Tuesday. The ones that allowed the Republicans to enjoy power for 12 years are the very same ones who took it away and handed it to the Democrats.
Essentially, when the right gets too far right, as it has been going these past 6 years, it becomes time to bring it all back to the middle. A mirror of what happened in 1994 when the left moved too far left.
It won't take long for the left to start moving too far left again and we'll have to repeat the cycle!
When will the two parties ever learn not to listen to the extremes?

Count me in. In fact, I would venture to say that the economy is good almost everywhere. Other than perhaps a few pockets around the country, and excluding any contrary rhetoric, I would have thought this was the common perception. As you point out, all the indicators certainly say it is. IT is also generally a good inidcator of business outlook...when business is bad or managers think it will be getting bad, businesses don't spend any money on IT projects. IT hiring right now is very good. Which is one of the reasons I would hope the Democrats now in power think carefully about repealing the tax cuts. Doing so would indeed be a tax increase, and tax increases are invariably bad for the economy.

If they do try to do that, I'll make a prediction. They'll skew it to only (or primarily at least) apply to the upper incom