Even though they are still counting votes in at least five congressional races, everyone seems to have already moved on to the 2008 Presidential campaign. Not so fast. There are some aspects of this recent 2006 election which still deserve more scrutiny precisely because they will affect the 2008 Presidential race. First, not one single Democrat running for re-election in either the House or the Senate lost anywhere in America. Not one. This was clearly not an anti-incumbent election - it was an anti-Republican incumbent election. And that attitude characterized the voting everywhere from Arizona to Florida to Massachusetts to Missouri to Washington State. A message like that, so firmly rooted in its consistency throughout the nation, is not easily dislodged in one election cycle and, historically, has never been dislodged in just one election cycle. That is not good news for Republicans in 2008.
In 2006, more Independents voted "democratic" than have ever voted overwhelmingly for one of the two major Parties in the history of US elections. Again, that is not good news for Republicans. Democrats picked up six Governorships previously held by Republicans, giving Dems control of population re-districting for new congressional seats and control of rules governing voting for 2008. And Hispanics, a demographic group increasingly attracted to the Republican Party message in recent election cycles, increased the margin by which they voted for the Democrats in 2006 and, in many cases, did so to protest what they saw as a mean spirited scape goating approach by Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives, to the immigration and border security issue. That may be the worse news of all for Republicans.
But this election was not a mandate for the Democrats and their message (other than Iraq), and George Bush is still in the White House with a veto-proof minority cushion in both the House and the Senate. Of course, in 2000, George Bush did not have a mandate either having lost the popular vote for President - but he governed like he had one anyway, an approach that may likely have laid the seeds to the current "thumping," as the President bluntly stated. Democrats need to reach out and govern with the civility and accommodation to the other side that was woefully lacking in how the Republican leadership governed the last six years. And the President must also reach out, open up and make a genuine effort to seek input and consensus with respect to policy and defining the administration philosophy on governing in a divided country. The "I'm the decider" approach along with the unpatriotic label attributed to anyone who simply disagrees with policy approach must go - now.
One danger for Democrats is that, depending on what the President does, they may not have the Iraq issue around in two years to anger and unite the country against the President and his party for their "stay the course" strategy. One danger for Republicans is that, depending on what the President does, they may still have the Iraq issue around in two years to anger and unite the country against the President and his party for their strategy in pursuing the Iraq conflict. As for America, we won one and lost one. America won one because despite such close elections in Virginia, Missouri and Montana, the charges of vote fraud and irregularities that characterized Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000 were largely absent.
America lost one for still tolerating an environment where race baiting campaign ads designed to play on racial fears and intolerance can still be employed to have an impact on the outcome of an important race for public office (Tennessee).
And America won one by demonstrating that sometimes, a consistent desire to send a message uniformly shared throughout the country will trump even the most calculated and planned October and November surprises.
WINNERS - Hillary Clinton, with no mistakes, a decisive victory, and more moderate democrat winners who are more in sync with her centrist position. John McCain, as a voice for a new direction in the Republican Party even as he reaches out to the polarizing influences. Rudy Guilliani, only because a Republican victory would have negated his message of a new voice. Trent Lott, who proves the adage that "good things come to them that waits." Barak Obama, because he is a winner, and Nancy Pilosi, because she can prove herself to be the smart, able professional she really is. Howard Dean for pursuing the Fifty State strategy. And Bill Richardson and Mark Warner, because anything that helps Hillary helps secure either of them a second spot on the ticket.
LOSERS - John Kerry - don't count him out but he seems to be doing that himself. George Allen and Rick Santorum, darlings of the conservative right who lost favor with more moderate constituents, and the Conservative Right, whose dominance began its decline with the Terry Schiavo affair. President Bush - for now - but never count out a sitting President - he'll bounce back, unless he just insists on rejecting that option because it would represent change.
This election did not permanently alter the political landscape, as some analysts have suggested. What is did do was prevent the Karl Rove Conservative Republican faction from succeeding in permanently altering the political landscape.
America is still a very divided country. But ironically, since 9/11, only one issue has succeeded in bringing more Americans together than dividing them apart - the Iraq war, and America's current united opposition to the course of that war!