If the Republicans lose tonight, they'll have gotten what they deserved. I hope that at least they'll do some soul searching.

Unfortunately, the Democrats will have gotten what they didn't and don't deserve--political power, in wartime.

We really need a new party.

You could always found the Neo-Conservative Party.

Run on a Platform of All War and more power to the rich.

I continue to await the day that you have an intelligent comment, Anonymous Moron. I suspect that I will wait until the sun dies.

I hesitate to raise this idea, because (a) the election is a done deal as I type this and (b) a Canadian shouldn't be telling Americans how to vote, especially considering that Canada has only recently gotten out from underneath more than a decade of de facto single-party rule (with the single-party rulers showing all of the incompetence, corruption, and moral smugness that goes with single-party rule). But for what it's worth...

It seems obvious to me (and likely to many others reading this blog) that US politics needs some sort of shakeup. Without a viable third party to compete with the Dems and the GOP, the only way I can think of to shake things up in Washington would be for the voters to not vote for/against a particular party, but to vote against incumbents, regardless of party affilation. If a lot of high-profile, high-influence senators and congressmen, from both sides, suddenly found themeselves out of a job on November 8, that would send a message: business as usual will no longer be tolerated. Thowing out incumbents would also thin out the old-boy networks, and deflate the overblown sense of entitlement that congressmen and senators currently have. (Recall how politicians showed remarkable bipartisan unity in efforts to defend their ability to pork-barrel, and to defend their (imaginary) immunity from investigation for corruption or other wrongdoing.)

We need a new voting system. I lean libertarian, but even when the Libertarians put up the best candidate, I have to take care to check the polls to make sure that the Republicrats are either equally acceptable or equally intolerable, so that I'm willing to forgo my opportunity to help choose between them.

Yeah, I know, "no vote is a wasted vote" and all that, but unless the game theory section of my brain dies, we need to get rid of plurality voting and replace it with Condorcet or at least approval voting. Somehow I don't see that happening any time soon, though. If you asked every member of Congress "Do you know what Condorcet voting is?" how many "yes" answers do you think you'd get? Five? Maybe ten? And if your follow up question was "Would you be willing to work toward such a voting system for the good of the country, despite the resulting increase in your own risk of being kicked out of office by a member of your own or of a third party?", would any honest "yes" remain?

I don’t know how the Democrats could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for the Democrats. This is terrible! A victory for terrorists!

How could anybody vote for a Democrat? The economy is great, things are going well in Iraq (unless you believe the liberal mainstream media, which never reports all the good things going on there), and the Republicans have done a good job of firing the pedophiles, criminals and ethically challenged malcontents in their ranks, after they are convicted.

This is a terrible day for America. Democrats hate freedom and they hate America. So anybody who voted for the Democrats must also hate freedom and America. Democracy exists no more in our country.

So, the local news breaks in to announce their prediction that Senator Hutchinson has kept her seat. They report that in a victory speech that Kay Bailey gave, she cited her ability to bring money home to Texas as a reason voters re-elected her to Senate. Unfortunately, she too can be added to the list of people who didn't and don't deserve political power.

The Libertarian Party could be taken over by a very small percentage switch from one or both major parties. For instance, the types of people attracted to the Republican Liberty Caucus could easily make that sort of move. A real break from the major parties really could shake up Washington, but people in politics are historically change and risk adverse.

You know, I think this could turn out well for those of the conservative bent, if not the Republicans. Its amazing that the GOP went off the deep end by irritating so many of the factions in their alliance by their actions in only little more than a decade in power. Evangelicals, small-governmenteers, soccer.. ahem.. security moms. Republicans sure acted like the incumbent party. The "no issue is greater than the war on terror" line of thinking couldn't carry the day from the incessant media attacks on Bush, Iraq, and the Foley disgrace. There are some positives, though.

It looks as if the Democrats will take the Senate, too (I'd advise saving some face and conceding Montana and Virginia for the good of the country, but I can already see the lawyers paradropping in both). However, they'll lead by the barest of margins, and I don't think Lieberman (and hopefully Webb) would do something stupid like convict Bush if he's impeached. Also, looking at the initiatives that were passed, it looks like conservative agenda items were approved by a good margin across the country. Also, many of the races the democrats won were by the thinnest of margins, leading me to believe that the referendum on the Iraq war was good enough for only barely above 50% to vote Dem. So when Iraq is gone, the democrats will probably not stand a snowball's chance next time if they act AT ALL like they've been acting the last few years.

And Rumsfeld is stepping down, apparently. Huh. The Republicans can use this time to do some party wide soul searching. The democrats' lead is so thin it will not just lose, but collapse, as soon as the conservatives get back on an even keel. Hopefully, the Republicans will learn some humility from this.

Bush made it clear before the election that Pelosi and the Dems will make us more vulnerable to terrorist attack. Now he says that he wants to WORK with her? And he fires Rumsfeld?!

Has our President gone all wobbly? Isn't this like working with the enemy?

I don't know about you, but I sure hope that the NSA is tapping the phones of Democrats to find out what they're plotting. And maybe they should start tapping the President's phone too...

Brent - Good post. Although I'm not so sure the Dems necessarily will lose power once Iraq is out of the picture. Politics have a lot of moving parts, of course, and many of those parts are simple luck (both good and bad), timing, and a lot of other factors that lie outside of a Party's ability to control. Also, Parties evolve over time - neither the Democratic nor Republican Party resemble some of their preceding incarnations.

I personally believe the Republican Party in its current incarnation has been better at framing - both itself and its adversary. The Dems began their disarray due to Civil Rights and Vietnam, and there has been slightly less disagreement because of Clinton (actually both Bill and Hillary) about whether the Party is best aimed as Centrists or more toward the liberal end. The GOP has likewise taken a hardcore conservative right-wing turn which has divided GOP members internally but not vocally, and hasn't hurt their unity so much yet.

Generally more registered voters identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans, take that for what it's worth. There is also a wide group of voters who don't particularly identify with one Party or the other. Each Party's challenge is always - election after election - how to attract most of its own Party's voters, steal away some from the other Party if possible, and attract as many unattached voters as possible.

While the Democratic Party is criticized as being a fractious bunch of special interest groups, the GOP is a cobbled-together coalition of unlikely bedfellows held together by a piecemeal policy aimed at hot-button issues for each group, clever PR, and an aggressive framing of Democrats where all else fails so voters will have something to vote against. Traditionally for years, you could ask someone what the GOP stood for and they could usually answer fairly clearly: smaller government, fiscal restraint, lower taxes, and American apple pie. It's been transformed the last few years to: tough on terrorists and willing to stay the course, family values, and protection of the Christian majority's rights that have been eroded by liberal minority challenges. The ems have been framed as soft on terrorism and the Party of cut-and-run. Which is kind of an ironic turn from the old refrain that "with Republicans you get a recession and with the Democrats you get war."

It's actually a helluva challenge if you think about it: how do you get rural folks from Middle America to vote for the same Party as the folks on Wall Street? Because they certainly do not both benefit equally from the same policies, no matter whether the policies are done by GOP or Dems.

There has been speculation that the U.S. population is turning more conservative. David Brooks has certainly been a proponent of that. I differ on that viewpoint, particularly for the longterm for three reasons:

1) Demographics

2) In democratic systems, the extent of social policies tend to expand with societal affluence

3) Over-reaching on the GOP's part, a disenchanted coalition, and the simple fact that many of the policies the GOP focuses on lack the long-term resonance of liberal policies - i.e., they make good soundbytes but aren't sexy.

For the first area, demographics, consider the Latino explosion in population, both in immigrants as well as the present birthrate, coupled with the very simple fact that this very large, substantial portion of the population is more likely to be in lower income classes. What can the GOP offer Latinos versus the Democrats? Take a look at the trend in social programs in Southwest border states. Bush has been careful to try to court Latino voters, but the GOP has not yet found a way to reconcile a rather huge potential voting bloc that's at odds with the interests of some of the GOP's other core audience (illegal immigration is one area where Bill O'Reilly has been unflinchingly critical of Bush since 2000). Given the demographic trends which are no longer solely confined to border states, and even considering that Latinos - like previous immigrant groups - have been making advances in relative societal standing, there's a very good chance for one Party or the other to find the right promise (which better be fulfilled) that will entice such a large bloc of voters to begin voting their voices.

Affluence increases perks for everyone - whether it's free soft drinks because the company is doing well or more social programs because the country is doing well. Social programs don't just get created during Depressions, although those deepen the resentment between the larger group of have-less and have-nots against the have-mores, and all things being said, everyone's vote is equal and a majority can certainly decide what to do with the money when it keeps seeing inequalities that can be changed with a vote.

Regarding the last point, the GOP like any Party that has too many successes, is capable of over-reaching and alienating part of its base or more likely the larger group of voters who are not Republican. Tax breaks can only be ridden for so long before people begin to see what they perceive as greater amounts going to a smaller group of people. And in any event, on a local level there has been growing a greater backlash against rising property taxes and other local taxes as states and municipalities deal with reduced flows of federal funding due to federal tax cuts.

Additionally, while the evangelical support for the GOP hasn't broken, it's not as strong as it was, and particularly as there is a realization that delivery of promises is problematic (just as Bush has been locked in a quandary between courting Hispanic voters while appeasing part of the base by promising to erect a border fence). It was appeased somewhat by Supreme Court appointments, but the Harriet Myers appointment was an embarrassing fiasco all around. Likewise, many traditional conservatives hooked their wagons to the Bush administration horses, despite being more centrist or traditional conservatives with different goals than those pursued by the administration, perhaps in the belief that as long as the Party had control, eventually they would get around to satisfying all the constituents, which as I said is a difficult proposition. It's why conservatives like Andrew Sullivan and Joe Scarborough became so vocally disenchanted and critical.

With regard to resonance, history favors liberal domestic policies. "Lincoln freed the slaves," "FDR's New Deal," and JFK's various initiatives and often-stirring rhetoric tend to be sexier than "President X lowered taxes." Plus, you can only lower taxes so much. And even if a border fence gets erected and was even successful (I tend to doubt both), picture it mentioned in history books against the context of the words on the Statue of Liberty.

I foresee over the long-term greater increases in social programs. I also tend to think that the GOP's framing of the Democratic Party - "they're gonna raise your taxes! You'll see!" is eventually going to wear on folks who begin to wonder whether their taxes really get raised as much as is feared, and also wonder what they're getting for those taxes being raised.

Net result is that both Parties have to continually cater to a disparate group of people - just as the GOP ironically managed to grab a good chunk of traditional Southern voters into being a pillar for the Party of Lincoln. And both Parties have an opportunity to exploit the other Party's weaknesses when events or hubris turn against them, to front a charismatic candidate who can charm across ethnic, gender, and societal-standing boundaries, and to present an appealing message regardless of the policies the Party intends to actually implement.

Has our President gone all wobbly? Isn't this like working with the enemy?

No - it's like the leader of a republic working with the opposition party that now owns a majority of the legislature.

You know - the way it's supposed to be.

"No - it's like the leader of a republic working with the opposition party that now owns a majority of the legislature."

But the Democrats support terrorism. Bush has made that clear. Why would he work with such dangerous people?

I listened to Rush today and he predicted a terrorist attack by January.

I don’t know how the Democrats could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for the Democrats.

Hackable Diebold machines and a million angry nerds.

We need a renewed Republican Party. The Libertarian Party needs to do the right thing and join the GOP and influence it from the inside, banding together with conservatives to overcome weak-spined conservatives like Hastert and RINOs liek Arlen Specter.

Blame me. I voted here in Virginia for the man whose election is going to give the Senate to the Democrats.

Funny thing: we did not have a real Democrat running here in VA. We had a moderate Republican (Webb) and a conservative Republican (Allen).

Oh well. I have voted for John Warner three times (so far).

So much for the notion (as suggested on this blog) that being a Democrat does not mean that one can be a pragmatist.

I suspect the only answer to America's problems is the one postulated in two Tom Clancy novels; Debt of Honour and Executive Orders.

But where is President Ryan when you need him?