If predicting the outcome of the election was the national sport in the weeks running up to November 7th, interpreting the results has been the obsession of the aftermath.  Republicans have drawn comfort from some mystic streak of "conservatism" in the new class that's undetectable to anyone but themselves (and their pals in the media).  The DLC sees a triumph of "the third way" despite the fact that an economic populism that's the opposite of DLC policy seems to be the one universal among the victors.  

But rather than dwell on how so many interested parties are desperately scanning the bottom of the cup, looking to find something that looks like a hopeful sign for the failed policies of conservatism and corporatism, there's another set of tea leaves equally open to misinterpretation.  Instead of worrying about the meaning of the election, I'm more concerned about the meaning of the campaigns.

I don't expect this to be a popular post.  In fact, I might get about as many favorable comments by voting Bush the bestest president ever.  But after looking at the issues, and considering what's ahead, I've come to the conclusion that it would be best if Jack Murtha halted his pursuit of a leadership position and allowed Steny Hoyer to take that role.

The reason: ethics, earmarks, and the politics of the personal.

More than sixty years ago, in the midst of World War II, the great liberal theologian, Harry Emerson Fosdick, preached one of the great sermons of the twentieth century.  At the time, the sermon shocked some of the listeners, and engendered a good deal of dislike directed toward Fosdick.  The title of Fosdick's sermon was "Worshipping the Gods of a Beaten Enemy."  Already, midway through the war, Fosdick could see that the allies were on a road to victory.  He was also in the midst of his own war, a theological war against a rising tide of radical fundamentalism and biblical inerrancy that threatened to wash away centuries of Christian thought.

Confident in the winning of both these wars, Fosdick worried about the aftermath.  He worried that victory itself would be a kind of defeat.  He fretted that Americans, conquering over fascism abroad and intolerance at home, would adopt both the tactics and the attitudes of those they had broken.  

The worries that he expressed in the middle of the twentieth century should speak to us in the twenty-first.  Not just in Iraq, not just in our churches, but also as we face the results of a historic election.

It was predictable as clockwork.  Even while the votes were being tallied, Tom Delay was on the air saying that the Democrats were going to have a lame duck majority.  Despite Bush's stumbling words of "bipartisanship," his first action was to try and shove John Bolton's nomination back through the pipe.  And now insiders like James Carville are trying to stave off irrelevance by joining themselves at the hip with Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to pick at the Democratic victory.

Republicans will be doing everything they can to make Democrats look as ineffective as Republicans themselves have been over the last twelve years.  Unfortunately for  the would-be congressional monkey wrench gang, they've spent the last decade putting in place rules and procedures that make the minority party all but irrelevant.  They can shout all they want, but their voices are going to sound funny coming from that deep, deep well of impotence.

Nice as it is to see the Republicans hoist on their own hubris-powered petard, we have to do more than just enjoy the irony if we want to still be laughing at Delay in 2008, 2010, 2012.  We have to not only pass bills, we have to do so in a way that fundamentally changes... well, everything.

(With the Virginia Senate Seat now called for Jim Web (Hooray!), I believe the timing for this post is appropriate:)

Of all the pundits, both amateur and professional, there were very few who nailed the 2006 elections -- who had the cojones to take a stand and call it all without doubt, without apology or caveat.

So who were these political geniuses?

Well, before we go there, let's take a look at some of those who were WRONG (i.e. Every other pundit)

In a victory that could be every bit as important as taking the US House and Senate, Democrats also took back a majority of state legislatures.

Democrats picked up control of at least nine chambers in Tuesday's election, winning the House and Senate in Iowa and New Hampshire, the House in Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, and Indiana, and the Wisconsin Senate, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Why is this as important as gaining control at the federal level?  Remember Tom Delay.

Right now (8:15 ET) the first results are still trickling in, but at this point it can be summed up as: Democrats are not winning in Florida 13.

Why mention that race?  Because it's the only key district reporting any significant % of the vote where Democrats aren't winning.

There's been an effort to tone down the expectations over the last couple of weeks, but that noise in the distance just may be a tsunami.

After four days straight of canvassing, I hung up my tired feet at 5PM today, halfway through my last packet.  I'd feel a bit bad about that, but truthfully, for the last hour I didn't talk to anyone who had not already voted.  Turnout in Missouri has been astounding, and some news organizations are now predicting that we'll top 70% turnout by the time the polls close at 7PM.  

That fits well with what I saw this morning.  I spent the first three hours of the day waving a sign for a local candidate at a nearby polling place.  At the end of that time, turnout was running about 10% above what that same polling station showed during the 2004 election.  That's right, a midterm election is pulling in more voters than a presidential race.

All I can say at this point is that Democrats are hopeful, but it's going to be close.  Yes, turnout has been very high in some Democratic counties, but it's also been high in Republican counties.  Considering the poor polling conditions in some of the urban precints, long lines might discourage voters.  The sheer size of the turnout could generate a bottleneck.

Still, as of right now, things are looking marginally Democratic.  Keep holding your breath.

Exit poll data: the first available exit poll data has McCaskill up 50-48.  Too darn close, but I'll take it.  After all, it's bigger than the margin of the last several races in Missouri.

With consensus wisdom already handing the House to the Democrats, polls are still indicating that a Senate pickup for the Democrats is a totally reasonable outcome of tomorrow's elections.

At a glance, the polls below (coupled with the historical tendency of 1) undecideds tend to break for the challenger, and 2) an incumbent held under 50% in the polls is in serious trouble) suggest:

Democrats Safe: Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania

Democrat Lean: Missouri

Toss-Up: Maryland, Rhode Island, Virginia

Republican Safe: Tennessee

In an anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, anti-Republican, anti-incumbent election cycle -- like this one is, the Toss-ups are truly the challengers to lose.

Look for a Democratic Senate come January 2007.

As you peruse the polls below, you might notice that many of the races are statistically too close to call. That means two factors will take over in the final hours:

1) GOTV efforts which have been highly touted on both sides of the aisle.

2) Voter enthusiasm. Who will be more likely to turn their opinions into actual voting. Democrats or Republicans?

Connecticut: Lieberman will take this one, holding large leads over challenger Ned Lamont. Independent Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats.

On election eve 2006, The USA Today is highlighting the parallels between Democrats in 2006 with the Republicans in 1994 - a year when Republicans seized control of the house with a massive pickup in seats.

They site a new Gallup poll that finds:

• Then, likely voters by 51%-44% favored GOP congressional candidates. Now, 51%-44% favor Democratic ones.

• Then, disapproval of Congress was at 66%. Now, disapproval of Congress is at 70%."

• Then, 52% said they were paying "quite a lot" of attention to the elections, the highest since the Gallup Poll began asking the question in 1958. Now, 50% say they are paying "quite a lot" of attention.

• Six of 10 Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country.

• By 2-1 they say national issues, not local and state ones, are determining their vote.

• And on the dominant national issue, 56% call the decision to invade Iraq a mistake.

• 36% of likely voters say that are casting a ballot for a candidate to send a message that they oppose Bush; 20% to send a message that they support him.

• By 40%-33%, likely voters in the USA TODAY Poll say the country would be better off if Democrats, not Republicans, controlled Congress.

This election is about Bush and Iraq. Either you're for Bush's handling of Iraq, or you're against it.

Right now many of us -- maybe even most of us -- are working furiously to affect the results of the elections now less than a day away.  Volunteers, staffers, and candidates alike have had their fill of cold pizza, stale donuts, and bad coffee.  But this is it, the ninth inning, the home stretch, the final push toward victory.  We can all sleep when it's Wednesday, and the United States has made the first step toward returning to sanity.

As part of this last push, candidates have rolled out their final set of ads.  Those with comfortable leads are giving delivering friendly little homilies and wrapping big grins around their thanks to the little people.  Those who aren't enjoying the upside of the polls are desperately applying poison to their blades and slashing in all directions, hoping against hope to make a fatal stab.

This is the game.  This is politics.  And you know what?  I hate it.

Halloween is past, but there is still a shadowy specter haunting the American political landscape.  Look over there behind that polling station!  It's Krazy Karl Rove and his insidious Republican GOTV machine!  We're doomed!

Many recent stories in the media have inflated the Republican's turn out efforts into a Godzilla-sized monster, ready to smash through any Democratic wave and carry Republicans back to their Washington lair.  And of all the terminology tossed around, none is given more mystical, magical significance than micro-targeting.

Sounds scary.  But just what the heck is micro-targeting anyway?

A new poll by Kentucky-based think tank, Rural Strategies, shows that Republicans are losing their edge with rural voters.

"In past elections, we've seen the numbers in rural areas break toward the Republicans at the end and now it's breaking toward the Democrats," said Dee Davis, the president of the group. He said a similar pattern was seen in the elections of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

The polls show rural voters -- especially rural independent voters -- shifting their votes to Democrats on issues like Iraq and the economy.  Perhaps most intresting of all, the poll shows that rural voters now favor Democratic Senate candidates.

This October, rather than looking to the unifying words of FDR, or the clarion call of JFK, or even the no nonsense toughness of Harry Truman, it's time for Democrats to seek inspiration from another source.  It's time for us to turn to Jackson.

I don't mean Andrew.  I mean Stonewall.

"There are two things never to be lost sight of by a military commander. Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible; and when you strike and overcome him, never give up the pursuit as long as your men have strength to follow; for an army routed, if hotly pursued, becomes panic-stricken, and can then be destroyed by half their number. The other rule is, never fight against heavy odds, if by any possible maneuvering you can hurl your own force on only a part, and that the weakest part, of your enemy and crush it. Such tactics will win every time, and a small army may thus destroy a large one in detail, and repeated victory will make it invincible." -- Stonewall Jackson

I'm trying out my new Title composition skills.

Read on please.....

I am Sherri Welsh, my husband is Barry Alan Welsh and he is Indiana's 6th Congressional Candidate for the Democrat party in Indiana.
It has recently come to my attention with admitted astonishment that there were aspects of Barry's bio that have been overlooked and that statistics regarding his campaign that have been left unheard due to lack of exposure.