Rahm's selected candidates only won 8 out of the 28 seats won last Tuesday.

Dems needed 15 to win so if Dems followed Rahm's lead they would have lost BIG... in fact because Rahm "selected" pro-war conservative candidates... he did more harm than good, considering that 60% of all voters were voting AGAINST the war...

Rahm did not give voters enough viable alternative Democratic choices. Dems could have picked up even more seats if Rahm hadn't been selecting the wrong candidates... this is proven out in the fact that the 20 candidates that did win (Dems won the majority WITHOUT Rahm's anemic 8 wins) were NOT selected by Rahm.

It is shameful, that he is running around taking credit for something... he obviously did not do... he should take note of the GOP and where hubris got them in the end...

You can fool some of the people some of the time... but you can't errr... fool me.

I hope Rahm gets the job he wants. He did a great job for the DCCC. Howard Dean did a great job for the DNC. I only wish everyone who ran this year could have been winners. We had a great field of candidates.

Speaking of the 50 state strategy, a big development on the wires....

Harold Ford, Jr. Being Floated As Replacement For Howard Dean
http://robwire.com/?q=node/1364

"The key to the Democratic landslide was the revolt of the swing voters. Everything I have seen in the exit polls shows that independents broke heavily for the Democrats and this was primarily due to Iraq, economic uncertainty and corruption. If the Democratic Congress veers too far left, they risk losing these voters in the next election."

This comment provides a great summation of the current, incessant conventional wisdom about the need for the Dems to veer right. But take a look at that core list of "centrist" issues -- Iraq, economic uncertainty, corruption. Those are classic left-wing issues, if played properly. I think the lesson of this election isn't that the Dems need to abandon their liberal principles; rather, it's that the Dems need to keep hammering on the ways in which their liberal principles correspond with the hopes and anxieties of the huge mass of voters who are tempermentally pragmatic but not necessarily "centrist" in their substantive priorities. That's roughly the New Deal model, and it's also what Howard Dean seems to understand better than anyone else in the party.

In addition to his 50 state strategy (which I think will pay bigger dividends in the future if continued), I really appreciate Howard Dean's ability to involve younger Democrats like myself.

He understands how to talk with us and that we differ from the older members of our party, in where we get our information, what issues we prioritize and how we support our candidates.

Earlier this week, he appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and at the end of the interview he said something that was simple but I appreciated, "and thank you to your audience Jon. They made this possible"

While they aren't the only factor that helped achieve victory, I think a motivated young audience (including Stewart's) helped a great deal with GOTV efforts and donations to races in swing states. (In addition to our actual votes)

Howard Dean is the architect of the 2006 landslide. It was Dean's inspiration and leadership of "50-state strategy" that brought home the bacon. Rahm Emmanuel is an opportunist. In 2003, Emmanuel foolishly urged a group of foreign policy wonks to support the invasion of Iraq and to use "muscular projection of force" as Democrat's theme. (Someone pointed out this sounds vaguely homo-erotic, popping Emmanuel's balloon.) This year, Dean was proven right: Iraq was a bad mistake and proved to be Republicans' albatross. Many sycophantic Democrats living inside the Beltway unknowingly take DLC public relations spin as truth. (Will Marshall of the oxymoronic and corporate-funded "Progressive" Policy Institute is a pathetic example.) I expect more from a WaPo political writer.

Kerry's "bad joke" and Dean's "scream" are the mainstream media's presidential- aspiration executioner's axe.

With "macaca" it was the public scrutinizing and lampooning a foot-in-mouth diseased Allen, but with both Dean and Kerry, the MSM is manipulating the media itself to conjur-up contempt towards Dems.

No matter how inocuous the original intent, or how ridiculous the ridicule might be, these two great leaders have had their presidential tree cut out from beneath then by a willful media.

I t wasn't just Fox, CNN had a screen with Bin Laden, Foley and Kerry on it, but the only thing that qualified Kerry for inclusion was his bad joke. And Kerry was posed in the middle, flanked by those two other "top news stories" of the day.

One by one, the media will try to embarrass or vilify the candidates they might not choose for us.

Kerry and Dean both fit that list.

And now that Mehlman's gone (I know, that was an easy prognistication to make) who's next?

Rove?

Maybe so, he needs to cut loose of W and the WH so he can start to work for McCain.

And I can't believe I actually wrote those words, and meant them in all seriousness. What a strange brew of political sould for sale...History is twisted, these pols are fickle in the ultimate sense of the word.

McCain once fit way up there on my "honorable R's" short list, but he is completely off the charts because of this wierd new hybrid monster R, an ideological cyclops with multiple and conflicting personalities.

Isn't Rove the "operative" who started the whisper campaign to defame McCain back in 2000?

And now it's the McCain/Rove team?

I guess they deserve each other.

Correction: instead of "Ex-Senator Macacawitz" I meant to say "Ex-Senator Macacawitz (yippee!)."

Krugman has a nice analysis (free this week only!) at http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html which is aptly titled "The Great Revulsion."

I agree (as usual) with JimD: HRC is a great way of GOTV for the GOP. If Dean has learned anything from 2006 it is that moderation is key. Having said that, HRC's perception (like Pelosi's, for that matter) among the GOP faithful is itself the result of PR. Can this be changed?

I agree that the D's need to come up with a good candidate BUT can the GOP come up with a decent candidate? At the moment, all the names that I've seen batted around have a number of practical, but fatal, flaws. With Ex-Senator Macacawitz no longer on that list things have gotten a bit tighter.

"Now if you ask me who has inspired me. Dean, hands down.

If you ask me who makes me feel included, Dean, hands down."

That is the best, most honest and accurate personal explanation I've seen, it makes the answers simpler than the pundits would allow.

But I agree wholeheartedly. I'm one of the millions of formerly disaffected Dems who has been brought back into perpetual activism via the Dean machine.

From the very first Dean meetup in Sacramento, it has been my wake-up call and my inspiration to get out from behind the keyboard and actually put some sandals on the street (that was my original term for the MoveOn people, whose crossover members from Deans "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" fueled the birth of the blogs as a tool of righteous change.)

Since Dean put that burr under my saddle, I've been intimately involved in three congressional campaigns, in California, Kansas and Iowa.

Also, I've become involved at the county level, volunteered or helped with local-level and statewide races, from city council members right up through my favorite Presidential possibility, John Edwards.

While it was Bush who made me mad enough to get involved, it was Dean who gave me an open-source venue for that involvement.

Thanks, Howard, for helping me and so many others realize how important our democracy is. I hope someone near you passes this along.

And I hope you stay right where you are at this time, we need your leadership at the helm of the political wheel of this newly christened Democratic Party ship of state.

Then, in 2008 we will complete the good work you and Rahm started this time around.

All this "infighting" is the beginning of future sorrows, if Dems don't work together, and get some of the I's and R's to join the sanity parade, nothing will change.

Dean deserves a lot of credit, not just for nationwide party building and more equitable asset allocation, but for inspiring candidates to run, too, and without that none of this would have happened.

Some seats that have run unopposed R's weren't just "opposed" this time around because of Dean, they were "defeated." And the DFA, Dean's original internet network, had a hand in that, too.

The Deaniacs and the Dean machine were absolutely instrumental in this victory.

Emmanuel's responsiveness has to be noted, though, he went where he was needed at the right last-moments.

But neither of them was perfect. If they had seen the opportunities that were always there, they may have gained the tidal wave I was suggesting so hopefully(42). That may seem ewxtreme, but the final numbers are so close in the some of those obscure races the Dems lost, a hundred thousand votes nationwide might have made that difference, so I wasn't just guessing OR "enamorating."

There's no doubt the Dems have displayed great leadership in this broad-spectrum sweep, it got us one branch of the checks and balances back.

But leadership alone won't be enough, it will take cooperation of each of those leaders and their extended support groups, to make it meaningful and to make it last.

For everyone from the high poobahs to the phone bankers to the block walkers to the sign constructors....Hooray!

Living in bleeding edge red Texas, I appreciate the 50 state approach. I also would like to see some of those moderate/conservative dems run against some of our paleo-conservative pubs.

That Firedoglake post, linked above, turned my stomach. Comparing Emanuel to Tom Delay -- we just won this election five minutes ago, and though the margin was satisfying, it wasn't overwhelming. Somehow I doubt infighting is the best way to consolidate our power.

There's no question that the blogosphere is the left's answer to talk radio. But it is not the sum total of the Democratic party. so let's not get too proud of ourselves.

I really wondered why Howard Dean was not on stage on Tuesday Victory Speach and why he was not even mentioned as far as I heard. And in my Opinion a Party cannot play a great or dominant role in politics if she abandons Parts of the country. So the 50 State Strategy is the only logical Strategy in the long Term.
And when Dean formulated his Strategy - no one had 2006 in mind to take over Congress. There was no Sign of teh coming wave back then.
But I have to agree that making Dean the head of the DNC was a smart move.

But all this feuding is not a good sign than in 2 years the Democrats have to play a lot more Defense in the House. The Senate looks better for the Dems ( i think 21 GOP Seats and 12 Dem Seats are up for reeelection - not completely sure). So there will be probably more funds needed and a good policy over the next 2 years.

I agree with Joshua Rudd - both Dean and Emmanuel deserve credit. I also think that the feuding over who gets credit is one battle in the activist versus moderate struggle for control of the party. Now that the Democrats have won the Congress, they will have to govern. There are deep divisions within the party. As many have pointed out, a number of the new Democratic representatives are in the conservative wing of the party. These newly elected Democrats will want to be re-elected. Supporting a liberal agenda in the Congress will not be a recipe for success for these folks. I think that Speaker-to-be Pelosi's agenda is fairly moderate but there will be pressure from some of the more liberal representatives, especially those who have been in the Congress for a long time, to pursue a more liberal agenda. The activist base will also be expecting some of their agenda be advanced. The key to the Democratic landslide was the revolt of the swing voters. Everything I have seen in the exit polls shows that independents broke heavily for the Democrats and this was primarily due to Iraq, economic uncertainty and corruption. If the Democratic Congress veers too far left, they risk losing these voters in the next election.

I am also interested in the impact of the midterm election on the presidential race. Many of these newly elected conservative Democrats will not be looking forward to the idea of running for re-election on a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton. Even here in Florida - pretty much a swing state where we have several new Democratic congressmen - Republican attack ads love to tie Democrats to Hillary Clinton. She is very divisive figure. I believe a moderate Democrat is the only kind of Democrat who can win the presidency.

Can't claim to know who to thank for this wonderful gift we've been given. Probably ALL OF THE ABOVE.

Now if you ask me who has inspired me. Dean, hands down.

If you ask me who makes me feel included, Dean, hands down.

If you ask who makes us the party of ideas, even when they're not popular(but ultimately right...see Iraq) it's Dean, hands down.

I have to point out that Not So Rich is not so right in saying, "Every single candidate that Emanuel hand-picked LOST." I think you're forgetting Mahoney -- the rabid conservative and longtime Republican who lucked into the Foley seat -- and Heath Shuler.

Mind you, it's possible that more moderate Dems might also have eked out wins in those races (although Mahoney's narrow margin suggests otherwise). But the fact remains that not all of Emanuel's anointed candidates lost. That doesn't make him the architect of the Dem takeover -- I've argued above that he isn't -- but you have to concede that he batted better than .000.

The real question, IMHO, is whether his choice of candidates (and decisions about where to spend DCCC money) held down Dem gains & deprived them of wins in close races where the Dem got little support.

Dean flew under the radar with his 50 state strategy and is still flying under the radar. Because of Dean's efforts, Democrats won in all states and on all levels, federal, state and local.

Dean's 50 state strategy will reverberate well into the future after Rahm is gone. Some of these newly elected Democratic office holders will eventually go on to become our future leaders in Washington.

Thanks Howard Dean. It looks like you are still flying under the radar.

Howard Dean is the architect of the 2006 landslide. It was Dean's inspiration and leadership of "50-state strategy" that brought home the bacon. Rahm Emmanuel is an opportunist. In 2003, Emmanuel foolishly urged a group of foreign policy wonks to support the invasion of Iraq and to use "muscular projection of force" as Democrat's theme. (Someone pointed out this sounds vaguely homo-erotic, popping Emmanuel's balloon.) This year, Dean was proven right: Iraq was a bad mistake and proved to be Republicans' albatross. Many sycophantic Democrats living inside the Beltway unknowingly take DLC public relations spin as truth. (Will Marshall of the oxymoronic and corporate-funded "Progressive" Policy Institute is a pathetic example.) I expect more from a WaPo political writer.

Don't forget that House Republican Conference Chair Deborah Pryce announced that she's vacating her position. Her comments and tone in the press make me wonder if she'll retire in 2008. I don't think any other Republican can hold OH-15 anymore, and with Democrats likely to control Ohio's 2011 redistricting now, and Columbus and Franklin County growing rapidly, her district will only be more Democratic once it (hopefully) sheds Madison and Union Counties for the 2012 cycle. She acknowledged in her announcement that her district had changed a lot since she last had a competitive race in 1992, and implicitly acknowledged that she'd grown out of touch with it. (see posts on my blog)

I don't see Hastert sticking around the House much longer either; what's the point? Keeping Boehner or Blunt in the leadership is useless and would be counterproductive to the House Republicans.

McCain already is known for employing gay staffers in his Senate office. It's about hypocrisy; not baiting anyone. You want to talk about baiting? Bob Corker.

CNN also mentioned Steele as a possible HUD Secretary. What the hell does he know about housing or urban issues?? What happened to all those black Democratic votes he was going to get? Cardin's win wasn't even close! More heads are going to roll in this cabinet...

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

I worked very hard as a netroots coordinator and strategist for a come- from- behind statewide winner in the midwest. I thought it was pretty funny to see Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs and that crew, and Chuckie Boy Shumer and Emanuel and that crew, including Pelosi, with the good old deer- in- the- headlights look, like-- "The Dems won, but we don't really know why." Then the NYT and this article. MSM, DCC, RNC, et al-- you are rewriting history because you don't understand what just happened. You don't. None of you. It was Howard Dean and the netroots that won this for the Democrats from the organizational point of view. Every single candidate that Emanuel hand- picked LOST. It was Dean, it was Dean, and it was Kos and Arianna and Firedoglake and Brad Friedman and all of the rest of us out there. And we're going to form our own party here pretty soon if you establishment types keep missing the real story.

I agree with many of the posters that Dean deserves far more credit than he's being given. However, I don't think that the Dems could have pulled this off without the candidates strategically recruited by Emmanuel. A lot of them are more conservative than I'd like, a lot of them are probably more conservative than Dean would like. But the important thing is that they were conservative enough for voters in their Districts to like.

The perfect storm metaphor glosses over the fact that the Dems aggressively and impressively took command of the field and used every advantage that came their way. Despite the advantages that came to them, if either Dean or Emmanuel or any of the other party leaders hadn't shown superb tactical and strategic leadership this election wouldn't have just been blown into the Dems lap. Honestly, I'm still amazed they pulled it off.

I think this was a joint victory. Personally I hope that Dean and Emmanuel never stop feuding; that's what in the end is the strength of the Dems. A diversity of ideas and approaches. That diversity finally produced some good ideas and approaches and it paid off...

and continuing the theme of
incompetency. . .don't they GET IT, that we want QUALIFIED people in the administration?

'One name that has come up as a possible replacement (for Melhman)is outgoing Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who just lost a U.S. Senate race. from CNN. . .

One of the sources, though, said a more likely scenario is for Steele to join the Bush administration in another capacity after the first of the year when a few members of the Bush Cabinet and other senior officials are expected to leave.'

CNN is reporting that Mehlman will step down at the end of the year. . .looks like Chris will start officially campaigning for
Steele. . .

Many argue who is responsible for the victory. Please.
It was a combination of some great people who had a vision. Yes, they fought and disagreed but, this happens in the heat of battle.
Dean was brillant in his 50 state vision and right to target all of America and not just a few select places
Emmanuel worked hard, gave up his personal life to see victory and make it happen.
Both deserve our heartfelt thanks and if Rahm wants the #4 in the House he should get it as a thanks.

Chris, Webb won by nearly 9000 votes according to the State Board of Elections website, not the 7000 odd you quote. The canvass apparently produced nearly 2000 more votes for Webb.

I concur with several comments that Deans strategy probably had more effect then did Emmanuel. The most interesting thing is that the Democrats made a lot of progress at the state level in this election, several new govenors and major impacts in state legislatures. Dean is building for the future and while he is a progressive he is pragmatic enough to realize tha east coast progrssivism isn't adequete to win nationally

Without denying deserved credit to Emanuel and Schumer, I believe Howard Dean deserves similar kudos - which he's not getting in the media and that's just plain wrong. Dean's 50-State Strategy provided a significant amount of foundation for their
accomplishments. Rahm & Chuck initially targeted "winnable" races, just enough of them to gain control of the House/Senate.
Were they looking at Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas? I doubt it. Were they courting Evangelical voters? I doubt it.
Were they encouraging activism from ordinary citizens (netroots & others)? No. Dean was doing those things, and his work expanded the playing field to places never considered and races never expected to be competitive. And, his work forced the Reps to spend big-big-money, thus minimizing their resources, in races all over America which were thought to be safe or previously had no Dem opponent.
Best of all, the fruits of Dean's labor remain in place today, after election day,
jut waiting for 2008. Thank you, Howard Dean!

Credit for gridlock where credit is due.

Pelosi will throw moderate Dems a bone through committe chairmanships - not with Majority leader. She'll pull Murtha through the mess.

Political Buzz has an interesting thought after the election: Senate filibusters. http://polibuzz.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-2006-quick-hits.html
I bet the GOP is verrry happy that they didn;t nuke the filibuster way back when.

Not quite yet MikeB! There are races still under review. The Dems may yet pick up more than 28. :)

Architect? What architect. The Democrats had no naional policy. At least one that was consistant. Most Democrats, except for mst of the newly elected ones, are waaaayyyy outside of mainstream liberal to moderate values possessed by most American's. And they still don't "get it". The Democrats won this election by simply countering the outrageous lies of Rove and his crew. At least Rove is done for! The Amercian people were simply fed up with Bush and the single most corrupt federal government in our nations history. They, like virtually everyone I know, voted *against* Bush. There are plenty of moderates in the GOP ranks and if the Dem's don't provide the sort of tax relief they want, don't get us out of Iraq, don't clean up lobbying, don't repeal the dangerous "Patriot Act", and don't end this outsourcing and guest worker nonsense, then I think the GOP can look to coming back into power in two years.

Hey, I called a Dem pickup of 28 House seats and 6 Seante seats the week prior t the election. Would the Post like to offer me a job as a prognosticator?

"the architect of his party's gains in the House, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.)"

Stop spreading this spin. Howard Dean is the architect of the huge gains. Most of the candidates that won against the incumbents were not on Emanuel's radar until they were already in striking distance in the polls. Without Deans's 50 state strategy and the relentless work of the netroots and grassroots, this success wouldn't have been possible. Emanuel was even counterproductive because of his insisting on using dozens of millions for candidates who didn't make it (sry, Tammy Duckworth, but these funds would have propelled several other candidates to victory). Imho the Dems would have fared even better without him.

Before I forget, Nor'Easter, I posted some comments directed at you in the Virginia blog. I'm not sure if you're still following that thread, which is why I mention it. If you're not too busy, I'd love to hear your thoughts to what I posted over there.

Moving on...

I also would like to credit Howard Dean here, though I join the multitude of voices who have already stated that it was more the Republicans screwing up than the Democrats playing like superstars that won this thing.

I would like to credit Howard Dean because I live in one of the reddest of red states and I like to think that eventually the national Democratic party will try and invest some resources to change my state around a little bit.

Now is the time for the Democrats to show that they have risen above the party infighting that killed the party in the past. Surely, with all this newfound power there will be positions to go around for the many people who have worked so hard to make this possible. As much as I hate to say it, if the Democrats aren't organized enough to sort the internal party matters out amongst themselves reasonably quickly with a minimum of fireworks, then they probably aren't capable of running the country.

On Larry King last night, Bill Maher said that he was going to be naming Republican Gays in power positions on his upcoming show. The Pink Mafia, or whatever they're called.

He specifically mentioned Mehlman, citing his refusal to answer questions about his sexual orientation.

I wouldn't care about this, save for the hypocrisy of them working on anti-Gay agenda; and the Don't Ask/Don't Tell which they rant against, but apparently practice.

Could be some loud wailing on Capitol Hill after that show.

Maher was specific that he would be naming people who have already been named elsewhere.

Progressive - trying to gay bait again. how about skin color politics? Try to find a winning issue for a change and refrain from smear politics. It may have worked the last time around and may continue to offer dividends, but if you really are progressive, you should be ashamed.

Mark,

You're right. I had confused the DSCC (from whom the DNC took the loan) with the DCCC. So, one can credit Schumer or Dean for this one. The firedoglake posting is going to take some time to walk through; thank you for the link.

Philosophically, I really admire Dean's 50-state approach. It seems like exactly the right way to go to build a big-tent Democratic party. On the other hand, it did strap funds in the end (Emanuel's point). On the third hand, I heard a post-election analysis by John Yarmuth - Kentucky 3rd district Democrat who had one of the most surprising upsets of the popular Northup. he got some funds in the end and said that it was welcome but not the determining factor. On the fourth hand (second foot?) this was on a conservative talk show in Los Angeles (the host, who I really dislike, used to have a TV show in Lexington with Yarmuth and they're close friends) so it's hard to know what Yarmuth was saying was spun (my guess is less than normal given the circumstances).

It sounds like there's a lot of information to be gleaned from this.

actually, chris, i think it was michael steele who was the architect of the democratic takeover. he is, afterall, the greatest person ever.

Keith claims Rahm Emanuel went out & borrowed money to help the campaigns. Unless I'm missing something, that's just flat wrong: it was the DNC, who borrowed money to help the DSCC. See http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/10/dnc_finds_more.html. Let me repeat: that's Howard Dean borrowing to help Senate candidates, not the DCCC.

Keith, if you have some evidence to support your claim, please post it.

I heard Ken Mehlman is leaving the RNC to manage John McCain's presidential campaign. But I also know some folks who are going to inform the Christian Conservative leaders that Mehlman refuses to answer questions about his sexual orientation. Will McCain be able to hold the right-wing coalition together after they learn the truth about the people running his campaign?

JL is right, Chris: calling Emanuel the "architect of victory" is a load of {substance commonly encountered in barnyards}. Yes, he successfully recruited a few early prospects (e.g., Shuler) who won, and also provided late support to candidates in surprise last-minute charges (Boyda over Ryun in KS). But people such as Yarmuth (KY) won their primaries over Rahm's opposition.

Chris Bowers, Ezra Klein, and Glenn Greenwald (among others) have already explained in detail how many new Dem House members owe nothing to Emanuel. You can see for yourself at http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/11/08/rabid-lambs-not-blue-dogs-won-the-election/. So please, give that canard a rest.

Frankly, I think that both Dean and Emmanuel can take credit, although the results were due more to a "perfect storm" environment, than either of their two strategies.

I've always bought the two strategies as separate and distinct anyway. One long term, one short term. I would have opted for the Dean strategy as being more practical, because it sets up 2008 and then 2010, and then favorable re-districting, which could last through 2020. Dean's strategy could have produced results, no matter what happened nationally. I'm not so sure the other one would have been so successful, except for things totally beyond Democrats' and Republicans' control.

In any event, it's better to fight over credit, than to fight over blame.

I couldn't believe Boehner blaming the situation in Iraq on the U. S. Generals, last week. The Generals did the job they were tasked to do, and were primarily through by the end of May 2003. The rest should be credited to the politicians and NeoCon philosphers.

Boehner's a leader? God, help the Republican Party in their time of need!

Thank you, Jackson Landers:

Since the elections I have looked in vain for some journalist, pundit -- anyone who dispenses political blather, good or bad -- to give Howard Dean the congratulations he deserves for his fifty state campaign to build up Democratic effectiveness. Why it is so difficult for the MSM to recognize Howard Dean but sanctify Rahm Emanuel totally escapes me. Blessed are the bloggers; may their tribe increase.

On the other hand, it was Emanuel who went out and borrowed money to target races because Dean had spread the funds so thinly. I would love to see a thougthful article that actually tried to figure out whether either or both strategies were instrumental.

There are plenty of Democrats who would disagree with your characterization of Rahm Emanuel as the 'architect of victory.' Rather, there seems to be a consensus that this sweeping win was the result of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. A strategy that Emanuel fought against tooth and nail all the way through the campaign. Democrats won in spite of Rahm Emanuel, not because of him.

My guess is Murtha prevails.

Shadegg may beat out Blunt and look for Phil English in the NRCC race.

Boehner and Pence will be close. How much of the blame does Boehner get for Tuesday will decide this. Barton is on the outside I think.