What it all means
Damned if I know.
What we do know is that Democrats have successfully regained the House by a similar margin to what the Republicans had, and the Senate is teetering close to Democratic control without actually getting there. But despite the rhetoric of national Democrats, the candidates who won seem to have run on more moderate platforms. Meanwhile, anti-war poster boy Ned Lamont in Deep Blue Connecticut was soundly defeated by newly independent superhawk Joe Lieberman.
All in all, it seems as though the Democrats will have the same kind of hobbled majority the Republicans had: narrowly holding a center of power filled with people who actually disagree with their own party on some very important issues.
There are plenty of pundits spouting what they think, and I have yet to see anyone treat the situation fairly. Most from the left seem to be suggesting the American people have validated everything that liberal Democrats stand for. Most on the right are twittering about the plethora of issues - like immigration - that Congress failed to fix to the ultra-conservatives' satisfaction. But the victors are the people least likely to succesfully deal with those issues. Either way, it's a bad misreading of the mood of the country.
And then there's the war. The Surrender Party has won with many candidates who aren't afraid to fight, and more than a few who recently were in Iraq themselves. Many are already suggesting the President will be forced to withdraw quickly from the field, which is a terrible misunderestimation of Bush's resolve, and practical reality.
Ultimately, it feels to me as though the storm is finally breaking upon the gunwales, and at this crucial time the captain and first mate have both decided to sieze the wheel and are fighting over it while the ship begins to take water. There is no clear middle, and no party really resides there. Meanwhile, we continue to founder.
