Først den konservative Washington Post-kommentator Charles Krauthammer, der stort set altid er velskrivende, snusfornuftig og med begge fødder plantet på jorden:

Tuesday was the electorate’s first opportunity to render a national verdict on this manner of governance. The rejection was stunning. As a result, President Obama’s agenda is dead. And not just now. No future Democratic president will try to revive it – and if he does, no Congress will follow him, in view of the carnage visited upon Democrats on Tuesday.

This is not, however, a rejection of Democrats as a party. The center-left party as represented by Bill Clinton remains competitive in every cycle. (Which is why he was the most popular, sought-after Democrat in the current cycle.) The lesson of Tuesday is that the American game is played between the 40-yard lines. So long as Democrats don’t repeat Obama’s drive for the red zone, Democrats will cyclically prevail, just as Republicans do.

Nor should Republicans overinterpret their Tuesday mandate. They received none. They were merely rewarded for acting as the people’s proxy in saying no to Obama’s overreaching liberalism. As one wag put it, this wasn’t an election so much as a restraining order.

The Republicans won by default. And their prize is nothing more than a two-year lease on the House. The building was available because the previous occupant had been evicted for arrogant misbehavior and, by rule, alas, the House cannot be left vacant.

Den altid lige så kloge og snusfornuftige Wall Street Journal lederskribent havde bl.a. disse ord:

One lesson of the big GOP victory is that voters are again open to a message of limited government, but they want messengers with the savvy and smarts to implement it. Voters swept dozens of newcomers to power on Tuesday, but they also rejected prominent tea party candidates who didn’t seem up to the task. This cost at least two seats in the Senate, and it ought to chasten tea partiers who want House Republicans to perform immediate miracles. It should also inform the 2012 GOP Presidential nominating debate.

By all means, tea partiers should hold Republicans to their promises, while recognizing that Harry Reid still has a Senate majority and Mr. Obama still has his veto pen. Republicans did not win a governing majority on Tuesday. They were given a chance to build one in 2012, if they can show they deserve it over the next two years.

Fhv. WH-vicestabschef & chef-strateg Karl Rove sagde næsten det samme på samme sider:

Tuesday’s results mean Mr. Obama no longer has the luxury of jamming through legislation solely with his party’s support. A week after saying it was “time to punish our enemies,” the president will have to find ways to reach common ground with them. In yesterday’s press conference, the president mentioned earmarks and energy policy as two places to start.

Republicans must not delude themselves: The voters didn’t throw out the Democrats because they are enraptured with the GOP. The polling data suggest that many voters, while warming to the party, still remain nervous about it. Republicans are on probation. And whether they get off of it depends on whether they do what they said they would on the campaign trail.

Voters want Republicans to press for reform—regardless of the obstacles placed in their way by Mr. Obama. They understand Mr. Obama is president for two more years and retains the veto, but they will insist Republicans at least fight for change.

Republicans should be willing to compromise on details. Ronald Reagan was right when he said, “I’d rather get 80% of what I want than to go over the cliff with my flag flying.” But voters will not tolerate compromise on fundamental principles.

Den sejrrige de facto leder af Tea Party-bevægelsen–nej, ikke Sarah Palin eller Glenn Beck, således som danske journalister gerne vil fremstille det–senator James DeMint (R-SC) var derimod allerede dagen efter valget ude med den ideologiske rive i en hilsen til de mange nyvalgte TP-kandidater:

Congratulations to all the tea party-backed candidates who overcame a determined, partisan opposition to win their elections. The next campaign begins today. Because you must now overcome determined party insiders if this nation is going to be spared from fiscal disaster.

Many of the people who will be welcoming the new class of Senate conservatives to Washington never wanted you here in the first place. The establishment is much more likely to try to buy off your votes than to buy into your limited-government philosophy. Consider what former GOP senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott told the Washington Post earlier this year: “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

Don’t let them. Co-option is coercion. Washington operates on a favor-based economy and for every earmark, committee assignment or fancy title that’s given, payback is expected in return. The chits come due when the roll call votes begin. This is how big-spending bills that everyone always decries in public always manage to pass with just enough votes.

But someone can’t be bribed if they aren’t for sale. …

When you are in Washington, remember what the voters back home want—less government and more freedom. Millions of people are out of work, the government is going bankrupt and the country is trillions in debt. Americans have watched in disgust as billions of their tax dollars have been wasted on failed jobs plans, bailouts and takeovers. It’s up to us to stop the spending spree and make sure we have a government that benefits America instead of being a burden to it.

Tea party Republicans were elected to go to Washington and save the country—not be co-opted by the club. So put on your boxing gloves. The fight begins today.

Og her lidt af Dr. Conservative, George F. Will:

Unwilling to delay until tomorrow mistakes that could be made immediately, Democrats used 2010 to begin losing 2012. Trying to preemptively drain the election of its dangerous (to Democrats) meaning, all autumn Democrats described the electorate as suffering a brain cramp, an apoplexy of fear, rage, paranoia, cupidity - something. Any explanation would suffice as long as it cast what voters were about to say as perhaps contemptible and certainly too trivial to be taken seriously by the serious.

It is amazing the ingenuity Democrats invest in concocting explanations of voter behavior that erase what voters always care about, and this year more than ever – ideas. This election was a nationwide recoil against Barack Obama’s idea of unlimited government.

The more he denounced Republicans as the party of “no,” the better Republicans did. His denunciations enabled people to support Republicans without embracing them as anything other than impediments to him.

I sin næste klumme, fortsatte Will i samme spor:

As he promised it would be, Barack Obama’s presidency has been transformative, but not as he intended. Whether it lasts two or six more years, it is an exhausted volcano because its biggest consequence may already have happened: It has resuscitated the right, making 2010 conservatism’s best year in 30 years – since the election of Ronald Reagan.

Republican gains were partly a result of the “shock-and-awe statism” (Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’s phrase) of the health-care legislation passed in March. Seven months later, a federal judge in Florida, hearing arguments about the constitutionality of penalizing Americans who do not purchase health insurance, was bemused.

Lawyers defending the legislation said that the fee noncompliant Americans would be forced to pay is really just a tax. But during congressional debate on the legislation, Democrats adamantly denied it was a tax. So, in a rehearsal of an argument that will be heard by the Supreme Court, the judge said:

“Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an ‘Alice-in-Wonderland’ tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check.”

Stemmeandele på landsplan (afrundet):

• Demokraterne: 42%
• Republikanerne: 51%
• (= andre: 7%)

Senatet:

• Demokraterne: 50 (-9)
• Republikanerne: 50 (+9)

Repræsentanternes Hus:

• Demokraterne: 190 (-66)
• Republikanerne: 245 (+66)

Altså med andre ord: Republikanerne vinder Huset overbevisende og går markant frem i Senatet men mangler reelt én stemme i et flertal.

Et sådant “bud” ligger i den højere ende for Republikanernes vedkommende sammenlignet med andre iagttagere, men på linje med hvad jeg har “prognosticeret” i mine to tidligere poster om emnet.  Til sammenligning ligger RealClearPolitics.com’s gennemsnit for “generic congressional vote” i skrivende stund på lidt over 8%, og de fleste kommentatorers bud på 48-49 senatorer og ca. 230-35 i Huset (til Republikanerne).  Bevægelsen i meningsmålingerne på landsplan har dog den sidste uge været så næsten systematisk til fordel for Republikanerne, at meget tyder på, at en “bølge” er ved at forme sig.

Viser dette bud sig at være korrekt, vil det være det største sving til fordel for noget parti ved et midtvejsvalg i cirka 100 år, den største stemmeandel ved et sådant for Republikanerne siden 1940erne og det største antal kongresmedlemmer for partiet i lige så lang tid.

Skal man krydre med lidt forskning på området, kan man pege på, at ved sidste midtvejsvalg (2006) tabte Republikanerne 30 sæder i Huset, hvilket svarede næsten nøjagtigt til gennemsnittet for de seneste årtier, samt at Douglas Hibbs’ model for midtvejsvalg forudsiger–på rent strukturelle faktorer–at Demokraterne på økonomien m.v. alene skulle tabe ca. 45 sæder i Huset.  Holder Demokraternes tab sig på 30 eller derunder (og dermed magten med Huset), vil de med god ret kunne fremstille det som en sejr.  Jo mere tabene er over 30–og især over Hibbs’ 45–desto mere vil det være en målestok for Demokraternes nederlag.

Den umiddelbare reaktion på D-sejren var

“I think this is the best environment we’ve had on the issue in quite some time,” said Cassandra Q. Butts, a senior vice president for the pro-immigration Center for American Progress.

Men så viser det sig:

In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats’ faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on illegal immigration were also elected to Congress.

Intet udelukker en katastrofal indvandringslovgivning, som vil bevare de slette og hindre mulige gode følger af indvandring, såvel lovlig som ulovlig.  Men at det ikke bliver så let at gennemføre eksempelvis en amnesti, som visse D-ledere og aktivister har håbet, er sikkert.

Og lige så sikkert er det, at dette er det store spørgsmål i amerikansk politik i mange år fremover.  For det tredje at den største hindring for en indvandringspolitik, der ikke vil bidrage til at opløse USA, ikke er vælgerne, men eliterne af begge partier.

Resume af målingen her, med link til detaljer.

I dansk perspektiv er flg. resultat tankevækkende:

In a question — the answers to which should embarrass even the most shameless appropriators — we asked:

“Which type of candidate for Congress would you be more likely to vote for?  A candidate who wants to reduce overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district. Or a candidate who is willing to increase overall spending on federal programs and grow the federal budget, in order to get more federal spending and projects for your district?”

By more than 2 to 1, voters preferred the candidate who would cut spending.

Det ville svare til den hertillands fuldstændig utænkelige situation, at to tredjedele af danske vælgere erklærede sig som modstandere af politikere, der lovede at bruge flere skattemidler.  Det danske modsvar til det amerikanske resultat ville være, at to tredjedele af danskerne i sommers havde sagt “vi støtter ikke politikere, der lover mere “velfærd” for offentlige midler”.  Underforstået: fordi vi selv kan og vil bruge vore egne ressourcer på de ydelser, vi ønsker, og fordi vi ved, at når det offentlige påtager sig en opgave, bliver den dobbelt så dyr og resultatet halvt så godt som når borgere og ikkestatslige organisationer frivilligt organiserer opgaven.

Undersøgelsen bekræfter de formodninger, andre har fremsat herinde om, at for mange handlede valget i USA om at skaffe sig af med et parti, der traditionelt (omend langthen løgnagtigt) har præsenteret sig som borgerens værn mod statsmagten og som et parti der foretrak mindre fremfor mere stat.  Så stærkt var det ønske, og så groft har R misrøgtet deres påståede principper, at man altså foretrak D, selvom de ikke vil opfylde ønsket om mindre stat.

Med en delt regeringsmagt vil vi muligvis opleve en langsommere vækst i det føderale forbrug.  Imidlertid har Bush-administrationen så radikalt opdimensioneret den føderale rolle på så mange områder (uddannelse og sundhed for ældre er blot to af de omkostningstungeste) at det gulv, hvorfra det nye Repr Hus (kammeret hvor alle bevillingslove fødes) starter, ligger højere end nogensinde.

Hvis andre undersøgelser støtter den formodning, at utilfredshed med en økonomisk ødsel Kongres var en stærk faktor bag vælgerflugten fra R, bliver de næste to år interessante at følge.  Adskillige af de nyvalgte D-kongresmedlemmer er nemlig erklærede tilhængere af at styre de offentlige finanser og har vundet, fordi de påstod at kunne gøre det bedre end deres R-modstandere.

Iøvrigt bekræftede valgdeltagelsen, at kvinder stemmer D i langt højere grad end mænd, og at de mest trofaste R-vælgere er gifte mænd og ægtepar med børn.  Rs nederlag skyldes ikke mindst, at de mistede en stor del af deres mandlige kernevælgere.  Det kunne tyde på, at disse skuffede mænd, hvoraf de fleste er familiefædre og mange næringsdrivende, har mistet tilliden til, at R-politikerne længere står for deres principper om ansvar og begrænsning.  R kan vinde igen, når partiet kan overbevise vælgerne om, at det faktisk er den økonomiske ansvarligheds parti:

“The Republican Party used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose.” An amazing 66 percent of the respondents agreed with that statement.

We asked which party is doing a better job “eliminating wasteful spending.”  The Democrats led 39 percent to 25 percent. Which party is “the party of big government?”  The Republicans, by an 11 point margin.

All of this is a big part of the reason the Republican party lost. Republicans squandered one of the very few valuable brands it established in voters’ minds over many years. And voters care about fiscal discipline and lower taxes.

I USA ja.  Ikke i Danmark.

Nye læsere kan f.eks. læse Sabatos analyser af de mulige kandidater til 2008-præsidentvalget, både blandt Republikanerne og Demokraterne; ingen af dem er chokerende, men de er solide og dækkende.  Jeg deler ikke hans vurdering af George Allen, men Sabato har givetvis flere fuldtræffere m.h.t. amerikansk politik, end jeg har …  Læs også Sabatos analyser af det kommende (eller skulle vi sige “igangværende”?) 2006 midtvejsvalg til Senatet og Repræsentanternes Hus.  Sabato forudser p.t., at der vil være fremgang for Demokraterne, men at den vil være beskeden, og at udsigterne til, at de vil genvinde Huset p.t. er for svage, mens det næppe sker i Senatet.

PS. Apropos mig og amerikansk politik, så lad mig i øvrigt en passant og sædvanligt selvpromoverende nævne, at jeg i sidste uge var gæst nr. 2 i Niels Krause-Kjærs nye og udmærkede DR P1-program Krause på Tværs. Programmet (som blev båndet allerede i november) blev lanceret som om, at jeg skulle forsvare Bush—og er efter sigende blev mødt med mange positive lytterreaktioner netop på den konto.  Hvilket sådan set er pudsigt nok, eftersom jeg reelt kritiserede ham en del undervejs og generelt blot prøvede at være “fair and balanced” …  Måske det siger mere om, at jeg havde lidt ret i min påstand om, at ethvert ikke negativt ord om Bush i danske medier næsten pr. automatik udlægges som et forsvar for manden …!  Udover at jeg fik karakteriseret Carter som mormon (når manden—som jeg jo godt vidste—faktisk er baptist!), gik det vist meget godt—ikke mindst i betragtning at det var 1 time og 33 minutter uden pause.

PPS. Bushs Amerika sælger i øvrigt ret godt.

PS. For en kort biografi af den store “Commander Riker” (1920-93), læs her.

PPS. Det var selvfølgelig Anthony Downs, som først var på sporet af ligningen.  Interesserede kan også læse Dennis Muellers Public Choice III.