Read them all.

More conciliatory than contrite, Mr. Obama used that phrase, “take responsibility,” six times but rejected the suggestion that his policies were moving the country in the wrong direction. He conceded that legislation to limit greenhouse gases was dead and said he was “absolutely” willing to negotiate over the extension of tax cuts, including for the wealthy. But he drew the line at any major retreat from signature priorities, saying he would agree to “tweak” his health care program, not “relitigate arguments” over its central elements.

While Republicans also called for more cooperation, they suggested that Democrats might not have fully absorbed the lessons of their drubbing.

“Their view is that we haven’t cooperated enough,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader. “I think what the American people were saying yesterday is that they appreciated us saying no to the things that the American people indicated they were not in favor of.”

The trials awaiting a fractured capital could arrive swiftly when the departing Democratic-controlled Congress returns in lame-duck session this month with contentious issues like tax cuts, the federal debt limit, unemployment insurance, an arms control treaty with Russia and gay men and lesbians in the military all on the table.

Read it all.

Even so, Republicans would be foolish not to act on the assumption that voters want policies sharply different from those of the Obama Democrats. No other administration in recent memory has suffered such a repudiation in its first offyear elections. Franklin Roosevelt’s Democrats actually gained House seats in 1934, as did George W. Bush’s Republicans in 2002; John Kennedy’s Democrats came very close to doing so in 1962. Dwight Eisenhower’s, Richard Nixon’s and George H. W. Bush’s Republicans in 1954, 1970 and 1990 suffered small losses, as did Jimmy Carter’s Democrats in 1978.

A more salient comparison is with the fate of Ronald Reagan’s Republicans in 1982. Both Reagan and Obama came to office with reputations as inspiring orators and with professional pedigrees (movie actor, community organiser) unusual for a practical politician. Both came to office while the economy was languishing and both saw recessions deepen in their first two years. But there was a big difference in voters’ responses. In 1982 the Republicans lost 26 seats in the House – a significant but not enormous loss. Exit polls showed that most voters believed that Reagan’s economic policies would produce a good economic recovery in the long run. Lower tax rates, reductions in scheduled government spending -voters believed these would lead to a private sector recovery after an extended period of economic stagnation.

Compare that with the results this week. The Obama Democrats lost about 65 seats – an unusually high number. And polling showed that most voters believe that their policies of increasing government spending and deficits and increasing at least some tax rates will lead not to a private sector recovery but to a continuation of the stagnation so apparent in just about every economic statistic.

Read it all.

Change in government is almost always good for the country, in spite of the loss of experience in the process. A lot of that occurred in Tuesday’s elections. Now the newcomers have to figure out how to make government serve the people, as opposed to serving just themselves. Obstruction and electoral combat won’t be good enough. The short leash in power that the voters gave Mr. Obama’s party made that very clear.

Read it all.

Tuesday’s election results represent a historic repudiation of the president. Yesterday, Mr. Obama acknowledged the severity of this loss and said that he assumes “direct responsibility” for our stalled economic recovery. He also said he was “eager to hear good ideas wherever they come from.” This is progress. He should now propose an agenda that goes a long way toward meeting GOP demands, while preserving a key number of his goals and priorities.

Read it all.

DAVID BROOKS:…My main problem [with the President’s Wednesday Press Conference] was, he was asked several times, were there any policies implicated in this defeat? And, again and again, he sort of dodged that question, or said no, and said, it was the economy.

Now, the economy was obviously a big part of this election. But to say that a whole series of unpopular policies, cap and trade, health care, stimulus, bailouts, were not implicated, well, that — I think that’s, A, wrong, but, B, draws the wrong impression, that you don’t have to change anything.

And so, when he talked about the stuff he had done wrong, it tended to be procedural or message-oriented. But there are some policy implications here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, does that tell you that he’s not going to change anything?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, he’s still — I think it was premature for him to have the press conference today, because I think he’s still working it out. I really do.

I mean, I don’t mean to sound like a shrink, but — because he hasn’t come to grips with the reality that the policies were rejected. I mean, in campaign after campaign across the country, Republicans ran against specific policies that Democrats had voted for.

Read or watch it all.

Responding to [Newsweek’s Jonathan] Alter, George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux agreed that interest-group liberalism has indeed been leavened by idea-driven liberalism. Which is the problem.

“These ideas,” Boudreaux says, “are almost exclusively about how other people should live their lives. These are ideas about how one group of people (the politically successful) should engineer everyone else’s contracts, social relations, diets, habits, and even moral sentiments.” Liberalism’s ideas are “about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas . . . with a relatively paltry set of ‘Big Ideas’ that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced by government, not by the natural give, take and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people.”

This was the serious concern that percolated beneath the normal froth and nonsense of the elections: Is political power – are government commands and controls – superseding and suffocating the creativity of a market society’s spontaneous order? On Tuesday, a rational and alarmed American majority said “yes.”

Read it all.

[President Obama]…should return to his original design for governing, which emphasized outreach to Republicans and subordination of party-oriented strategies. The voters have in effect liberated him from his confining alliances with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and put him in a position where he can and must negotiate with a much wider range of legislators, including Republicans.

The president’s worst mistake may have been avoiding even a single one-on-one meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell until he had been in office for a year and a half. To make up, the outreach to McConnell and likely House Speaker John Boehner should begin at once and continue as a high priority.

Obama tried governing on the model preferred by congressional Democrats and the result was the loss of Democratic seats and his own reputation. Now he should try governing his own way. It cannot work worse, and it might yield much better results.

Read it all.

The White House and a transformed Congress are bracing for a high-stakes battle later this month over a host of expiring tax breaks and benefits for the unemployed that will mark the first test of the new political dynamic in Washington.

If President Obama, his weakened Democratic allies and a resurgent Republican Party cannot find a way to work together, taxes will rise sharply in January for virtually every American taxpayer, and more than 3 million people will lose their unemployment checks – which together could suck more than $300 billion out of the pockets of consumers and business owners next year.

Economists across the political spectrum say such a blow would be devastating to the economy and has the potential to halt the fragile recovery in its tracks.

Read it all.

US mortgage agency Freddie Mac has suffered a further $4.1bn (£2.5bn) loss on bad home loans in the past quarter.

Meanwhile its head predicted “renewed pressure” on the US housing market.

“We believe it will be a considerable time before the housing market has a sustained recovery,” said chief executive Charles Haldeman.

Read it all.

A Congressional majority is a terrible thing to waste, as Rahm Emanuel might say, and yesterday the public took that lesson to heart. Americans erased a Democratic House majority and a huge swath of the “moderates” who Mr. Emanuel had personally recruited to build their majorities in 2006 and 2008 before he became White House chief of staff. They were ousted from power after a mere two terms for having pursued an agenda they didn’t advertise and that voters didn’t want.

Yes, the economy was the dominant issue and the root of much voter worry and frustration with Washington. But make no mistake, this was also an ideological repudiation of the Democratic agenda of the last two years. Independents turned with a vengeance on the same Democrats they had vaulted into the majority in the waning George W. Bush years, rejecting the economy-killing trio of $812 billion in stimulus spending, cap and tax and ObamaCare.

Read it all.

We are especially interested in your take on the local races where you live, as you will have more knowledge of them than the rest of us.

South Carolina has never been this red, and the state Democratic Party has never been this lost.

For the first time since Reconstruction, all nine of South Carolina’s constitutional offices will be held by Republicans, come January.

The one statewide office Democrats held, the superintendent of education, was lost in Tuesday’s Republican landslide. Democrats failed to capture any of the eight other statewide offices already held by Republicans.

Read it all.

Two years ago this week, triumphant Democrats were throwing around the word “realignment,” as in the kind of Democratic majority that could endure for a generation or more. Wednesday morning, those same Democrats awoke to find that their majority had not lasted for even another election cycle.

The question that will dominate the conversation among Democrats in the days ahead is how it came to this, especially since Republicans offered little to voters beyond an emphatic rejection of the president’s policies. Some Democrats believe they fell victim to the inevitable tide of midterm elections. Others blame the economy, plain and simple, while a growing chorus accuses Mr. Obama of failing to communicate the party’s successes.

The truth is that all these explanations probably played some role in the unraveling ”” though, in the case of Mr. Obama’s message, the failure may have deeper roots than his critics assume.

Read it all.

There is no blunter way for voters to send a message. For the third election in a row, Americans kicked a political party out of power.

So you would think that, by now, politicians in Washington would have gotten the message: They must be doing something wrong.

From the moment they lift their right hands to take the oath of office, lawmakers are now on notice that their hard-won power may be short-lived.

Read it all.

From here:

Our current projection is that Republicans will finish with a total of 243 house seats: this would reflect a net gain of 65 from Democrats. The range of plausible outcomes is fairly small: our model thinks there is roughly a 90 percent chance that the G.O.P.’s total will eventually be somewhere between 64 seats and 66.

That’s an amazing result for Republicans ”” and far more remarkable from a historical perspective than the fact that Democrats were able to leg out a couple more wins than expected in the Senate. I’m not trying to be a media critic here, but Republicans have some legitimate gripe with portrayals of the night as having been a split decision.

Still, Democrats will finish with at least 52 of their Senators intact, unless they lose both Washington and Colorado, which is unlikely. That margin would be enough to prevent them from losing control of the Senate even if both Joseph I. Lieberman and Ben Nelson decided to caucus with Republicans.

I would like to keep all the comments tonight on this thread: what we are interested in is what you are keeping you eye on, data as you can provide it, and source urls and geographical mentions where possible (if you are mentioning a House race for example do not assume people know where the district is unless you tell them).

I plan on another open thread near 11 pm est.

American voters streamed to the polls on Tuesday in elections that will recalibrate the balance of power in Washington and in state houses across the nation, with Republicans poised to make big gains, particularly in the House of Representatives where they expect to seize a majority, and Democrats anxious to stem their losses and hold control of the Senate.

With polls showing the public disquieted over a weak economy and generally disapproving of how President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are leading the country, Republicans seemed well within reach of capturing the 39 seats that they need to win a majority in the House, which Democrats now hold by a margin of 255 to 178, with two vacancies.

If they succeed, the Republicans would break the one-party lock that Democrats have held on Washington since Mr. Obama’s victory in 2008. They would also set new parameters for the remainder of the president’s term, potentially slamming the brakes on what has been, by any historical standard, a remarkably ambitious agenda, and forcing the administration to rethink many of its policies, especially on the economy.

Read it all.

Even for a nation that is, by now, used to drinking in political news through a fire hose, election night on Tuesday could be a difficult one to absorb.

More than 500 House, Senate and governor’s races will be decided, if not by the end of the night, then over the course of the nail-biting days ahead as write-in ballots are counted and recounts are requested.

Beyond the individual results, the nation will be looking at the returns for answers to bigger questions: Was this election about President Obama? How powerful a phenomenon is the Tea Party movement? How will the new Congress address the still-weak economy? What will it mean for the crop of likely 2012 Republican presidential candidates? Did anonymous campaign money sway the outcome?

Read it all.

The first big hint of what’s to come will be at around 5:45 p.m., when media outlets begin reporting partial exit-poll data about the makeup of the electorate. These news organizations actually receive all the exit-poll data that is available around the country at 5:00 p.m., but they don’t use it to call races until polls close in the relevant states. Yet they are willing to report the non-candidate data from the exits earlier in the evening–and, if you read it right, that information can tell you a lot about who’s going to win. Here’s what to look for:

”¢Partisan/ideological composition of the electorate: In terms of self-identification by voters, if Republicans outnumber independents, it will be a very good sign for the GOP. If voters are divided into Republicans and Democrats plus “leaners,” any plurality by Republicans will be significant. Similarly, if conservatives outnumber moderates, and/or if conservatives exceed 45 percent of the electorate, look for big GOP gains.

Read it all.

Check it out and bookmark the site for today also.

In the first week of January 2010, Rasmussen Reports showed Republicans with a nine-point lead on the generic congressional ballot. Scott Brown delivered a stunning upset in the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election a couple of weeks later.

In the last week of October 2010, Rasmussen Reports again showed Republicans with a nine-point lead on the generic ballot. And tomorrow Republicans will send more Republicans to Congress than at any time in the past 80 years.

This isn’t a wave, it’s a tidal shift””and we’ve seen it coming for a long time. Remarkably, there have been plenty of warning signs over the past two years, but Democratic leaders ignored them. At least the captain of the Titanic tried to miss the iceberg. Congressional Democrats aimed right for it.

Read it all.

The website is here.

Of interest at present, the Republicans retaking the House is priced at about 93.5, and the Democrats keeping control of the Senate has slipped to 43.5

The final USA Today/Gallup measure of Americans’ voting intentions for Congress shows Republicans continuing to hold a substantial lead over Democrats among likely voters, a lead large enough to suggest that regardless of turnout, the Republicans will win more than the 40 seats needed to give them the majority in the U.S. House.

The results are from Gallup’s Oct. 28-31 survey of 1,539 likely voters. It finds 52% to 55% of likely voters preferring the Republican candidate and 40% to 42% for the Democratic candidate on the national generic ballot — depending on turnout assumptions. Gallup’s analysis of several indicators of voter turnout from the weekend poll suggests turnout will be slightly higher than in recent years, at 45%. This would give the Republicans a 55% to 40% lead on the generic ballot, with 5% undecided.

Read it all. We shall see–it is not over until it is over.

It takes an effort these days to recall the thrill that surged through the world when Barack Obama was elected America’s president. It was not only that he was the first black person to assume the globe’s greatest office. He seemed to be preternaturally thoughtful, dignified and decent; a man who could heal America’s wounds at home and restore its reputation abroad. Though too many were swept away in a collective longing to see hope triumph over experience, none of it seemed wholly unreasonable at the time. Yes, many thought, he can.

Two years later, the magnitude of the let-down is palpable everywhere; and at home the president is caught in a vice. To many on the left, he is a cowardly compromiser, whose half-baked plans to get America back to work have done little to help those who voted for him, and whose health-care and financial reforms were gutted at the behest of special interests. To many on the right, he seems a doctrinaire spendthrift who has squandered trillions of dollars on wasteful bureaucracy, mortgaging the future while failing to grapple with the present. To centrists who backed him, including this newspaper, he has been a disappointment, his skills as a president falling far short of his genius as a campaigner.

Read it all.

Two years after America voted overwhelmingly for change, polls, analysts and an angry election season suggest its voters are about to do so again.

Amid universal expectations of big Republican gains in Congress, Tuesday’s balloting is also likely to tip the scales of power in states across the country, and with them, partisan prospects for the elections of 2012 and the balance of the century’s second decade.

In Pennsylvania, the high-profile, high-spending races for governor and senator have been unavoidable to anyone with a television or radio. Both are at the top of the national parties’ priorities. But in an election in which the GOP needs 39 seats to wrest the speaker’s gavel from Nancy Pelosi, a spotlight has also cast Pennsylvania’s U.S. House contests in sharp relief. In a chamber in which 90 percent of incumbents typically win re-election, nearly half of Pennsylvania’s seats feature competitive contests.

Read it all.

A number of you know I (a) like politics and (b) follow it quite closely. From time to time it crops up as an element of focus on the blog, and the midterm elections 2010 is one of those times. There is no flawless indicator, but my favorite as some of you may remember is Intrade, since it involves real people and real money (and it has a very fine track record). By far the most revealing graph I have found is this one:

What does this mean? Think anti-incumbency and a disgust with business as usual in Washington at a minimum–KSH.

Over the next two years, Obama will have to show that he is a traditionalist on social matters and a center-left pragmatist on political ones. Culturally, he will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility. Politically, he will have to demonstrate that he is data-driven ”” that even though he has more faith in government than most Americans, he will relentlessly oppose programs when the evidence shows they don’t work.

… Obama will need to respond to the nation’s fear of decline. The current sour mood is not just caused by high unemployment. It emerges from the fear that America’s best days are behind it. The public’s real anxiety is about values, not economics: the gnawing sense that Americans have become debt-addicted and self-indulgent; the sense that government undermines individual responsibility; the observation that people who work hard get shafted while people who play influence games get the gravy. Obama will have to propose policies that re-establish the link between effort and reward.

Read it all.

Jay Leno on undecided voters: “Do we vote for the people who got us into this mess, or the people who can’t get us out of this mess?”

Having served in Congress for 16 years, I can attest from personal experience to the perverse influence that money has in our democratic process.

It isn’t just a question, as Mr. [David] Brooks advocates, as to whether money is the deciding factor in election outcomes. The effect of the money flow on influencing the way members of Congress vote on issues that motivate campaign donors to give is tremendously pernicious. Few members will bite the hand that feeds them.

Read it all.