In 1994, the Republicans ran on a platform, the Contract with America. Their victory therefore gave them a mandate, notwithstanding that many voters were vaguely aware (if at all) of the Contract. This year, the Democrats ran as non-Republicans. They made a deliberate decision not to take an issue on the biggest issue of the day, the Iraq war, and they downplayed (at least in competitive races) their intention to raise taxes and take other unpopular measures.

I just emailed a couple of liberal friends:

You guys must be happy about the Dem wins. Of course I am apprehensive - if they decide to fight the war on terror instead of appeasing, and see Iraq through the current assault by Iran and Al Queda (i.e. listen to the troops and the generals in charge, not retired generals who are mad at Rumsfeld for restructuring the military!), and confirm Bolton - I will be relieved. Got my fingers crossed.

Oh, and don't tinker with the economy. This is the most growing job-creating healthy economy in years, but trust the Dems to screw it up with high taxes and entitlements that dont really help the people they are supposed to. But they don't have that much power because the races are so close. got my fingers crossed.

However, neither I nor any Republican/conservative I have seen so far is suicidal, taking to bed with the vapors, or threatening to move to another country. As one recent convert put it:

Conservatives! This is what I want! I feel like - to some extent that I'm still a lib in my heart because I'm so bummed out, (but I won't claim "voter fraud!" - not that liberal!) I need to fix that. I see you all, my husband and the conservative sitting next to me at work and you are all optomistic, look for the silver lining and keep on truckin. I guess that's why the GOP is the mentally stable party. As a recent convert, I will work on that. But I love it! You are the best people! You make me feel better!

More from the same comment thread:

Gloat away. The GOP handed you this race. We lost it, period. That's called Democracy - and it works. I'm not going to let it effect my mood. I DO have a life. And I thank God that I live in a country where the people can decide their laws and vote for their leaders. I have nothing to bitch about. I'm not going to cry to my mommy about how the Democrats "stole" the election or employed "swiftboat" tactics or smeared good people's names, (like they did like Sen. Allen) or how racist and disgusting their behavior was toward Michael Steele, (throwing Oreos at him, calling him "Sambo" - which is frankly why I can't be affiliated with Democrats ever anymore.) I'm proud to be a Republican because we don't act like babies. And I'm just going to start saving every penny I can so I have something left after the Dems get finished rolling back the tax cuts.

UPDATE - More optimistic Republicans:

I recall in 2004 when Bush won again and when the Rs were in charge of everything Democrats flying off the handle and the liberal blogosphere lighting up like a profanity-laden pinball machine. People screaming for recalls and blaming everyone under the sun because of how stunned they were that they could lose. But today, the morning after a rather telling loss, I am drowning in conservative literature and television with pundits and politicians alike focusing inward on how we can change ourselves to recapture the American heart rather than spewing vitriol at the Democratic victors. Our guys lost, fair and square. And they realize that they need to make things better from within before they can expect Americans to vote for them again. And they're already working on it.

This RINO liberal/libertarian hawk is happy about a few results that the conservatives are not:
Rejecting a gay marriage ban in Arizona.
Rejecting an abortion ban in South Dakota.
Stem cell research passes in Missouri.

Speaking of liberal hawks . . .

Evan Coyne Maloney: What brings you out to Lieberman HQ tonight?
Ron Silver: I heard there was a Jew running somewhere in America.
ECM: And in Connecticut of all places!
. . . . RS: Some people think we're in a war. Some people think we are not in a war. I think we're in a war. I support people who think we're in a war.
. . . . ECM: This is the most pivotal race because it's not about who controls the Senate, it's about who controls the Democratic Party.
RS: Bingo! And that's why I am so happy that Joe won.

Christopher Hitchens: Kinky Friedman deserves to be the governor of Texas.

*sigh* Yeah, well. . . .

More hawkish Jews - according to the Jewish Republican Coalition (via email):

According to exit polls conducted for the Republican Jewish Coalition by leading pollster Arthur Finkelstein, the Jewish vote for Republicans held steady compared to reported results from 1992 to 2004. At the same time, in a difficult political environment, the national vote for Republicans declined significantly, resulting in the loss of control of the House and possibly the Senate.
According to the RJC exit polls of 1000 voters (margin of error +/-3%) taken yesterday, support for the GOP among Jewish voters was 26.4%.

The RJC polls found that among those who saw the RJC ads in local Jewish newspapers, support for Republicans rose to 35.4%, a nine percent increase over the average of 26.4% support for the GOP found in the RJC polls. In addition, due to our efforts, likely House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with several senior House Democrats, held a national townhall meeting with the Jewish community to defend their party’s record on Israel. [emphasis mine-JSW]

. . . . the RJC polls found that younger Jewish voters are more inclined to support Republican candidates. Among those under age 55, 30.7% voted Republican, compared to those age 55 and over, who voted 23.8% Republican. . . . The RJC polls confirmed that there is a gender gap among Jews - men voting Republican: 30.6%; women voting Republican: 22.6%.

Just as in the larger population, the more a voter attends religious services, the more likely he or she is to vote Republican. Among those who attend synagogue almost every day, 35.2% voted Republican. Among those who attend once a week, 31.8% voted Republican. And among occasional attendees, 23.1% voted Republican. Similarly, Reform Jews voted 23.0% Republican, Conservative 25.2%, and Orthodox 42%.

So even though national voting for Republicans declined, relatively speaking, Jewish votes increased. I would say that's significant, and Nancy Pelosi saw the writing on the wall.

UPDATE: I have been getting emails from both the Republican Jewish Coalition and the National Jewish Democratic Council for the last four months trying to convince me to vote their way. It would have been fun to post each of these as they showed up in my inbox, but too late now. Anyway, the NJDC says that the RJC's poll numbers are way wrong.

Jewish Republicans are fond of saying that George W. Bush received 24% of the Jewish vote in 2004. Well, after a million dollar ad campaign filled with misleading statements and absolute lies, it appears that Jewish Republicans managed to cut the number of Jews supporting their party in half. Yesterday, American Jews said no to the failed efforts of Jewish Republicans who tried to use Israel as a partisan wedge issue. We said yes - with a proud and loud voice - that both Democrats and Republicans support Israel.

American Jews said no to corruption and no to the Radical Right's stranglehold on Congress' public policy agenda. We said yes to stem cell research, religious plurality, and social and economic justice.

The issue isn't whether both parties "support Israel." The issue is what they think is the best way to "support Israel." Appease terrorists, be naive about the UN, send "envoys" to "broker peace" with terrorists who will use that as an excuse to further their dreams of eradicating Israel? Or take the fight to the terrorists and refuse to buy into the international vilification of Israel? Confirm John Bolton? Appreciate the Christian support of Israel instead of sneering at it and misrepresenting it?

UPDATE: Thank you, Democrats, for bringing this day closer:

James Wolfensohn, a former World Bank president and envoy for the Quartet of international mediators in Israeli-Palestinian relations, as saying he fears that the Jewish state "will be pushed to the sidelines of the American administration's interest within two years."

Wolfensohn, who was speaking at a Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago dinner, cited the ascendancy of Iran, the disarray in Iraq, the fallout of the Lebanon war and the resilience of the Palestinian Hamas regime as having changed the strategic realities in the Middle East, as far as the United States is concerned.

Re my email above (". . . if they decide to fight the war on terror instead of appeasing, and see Iraq through the current assault by Iran and Al Queda (i.e. listen to the troops and the generals in charge, not retired generals who are mad at Rumsfeld for restructuring the military!), and confirm Bolton - I will be relieved.") Pelosi promises another Vietnam:

… New Dem majority has heard the voice of the American public … they spoke out for honesty, civility, bipantisarship, and we pledge to it [and we'll hold you to it Nancy-JSW]… nowhere was the call for a new direction than with the war in Iraq … stay de course has not worked, has not made America safer and has not honored the troops … Important to work with the president in a bipartisansan way on not staying the course … we want to work with him in a partnership to end the war … we must begin the responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.

Oh brother. Hawkish Democrats, we need you now.

UPDATE: Mudville Gazette rates the incoming Congressthings on their positions on the Iraq War.

Related to Iraq and WWIV in general: I am agnostic on firing Rumsfeld as a repudiation of his decisions on Iraq. In any wicked problem like nation-building there will be many mistakes, and many choices that one can only evaluate in hindsight, which is why I refuse to say that the reconstruction is a debacle or that those who carp are right. They might be, but every choice made had a good reason.

I really hope Bush does not fire Rumsfeld because his restructuring of our military is crucial to our safety and effectiveness in global politics, and must continue. No matter how many retired generals carp about it to the MSM.

UPDATE: Listening to Bush's speech . . . he does fire Rumsfeld, appoints Bob Gates, who used to be CIA Director. Bush says Gates will continue military overhaul. The rest of the speech is great, will link to transcript later.

UPDATE: Neo-Neocon's impression of the speech is similar to mine. I thought Bush handled the press very well, and reaffirmed his commitment to seeing the war through as much as he is able.

Michael Moore says it's all about the war. Of course. He'll do everything he can to make it Vietnam.

Jonah Goldberg:

I think James Baker and Dick Cheney should take Bush out to the woods around Camp David. After 24 hours in a sweat lodge, he should be given only a loin cloth, a hunting knife and a canteen of water. Bush should then set out to track and kill a black bear, after which he should eat its still beating heart so he can absorb its spirit. He should then fly back to Washington in Marine 1. His torso still scratched from the bear's claws, his face bloodied and steaming in the November chill, he should immediately give a press conference at which he throws the bearskin on the front row of the press corps, completely enveloping Helen Thomas, declaring, "I'm not going anywhere."

This will send important messages to Democrats and well as to our enemies overseas, who are no doubt high-fiving as we speak.