>> stopping the war in Iraq,
>
> Not necessarily - they just want a little less of it. Lamont lost and
> Lieberman won in a liberal state. Immediate withdrawal gets little
> support, and a lot of the Dems who won were chosen by Emmanuel
> because they weren't seriously antiwar.
I think *this* is going to be the contentious issue in interpreting the outcome. What was it -- the handpicking ability of Emmanuel and Schumer or the turnout? I have no doubt the Dem politicos are going to spin it as a victory of the center, triangulation, careful local positioning, etc. But, fundamentally, I think that's the wrong way to read this.
The turnout is the dog here. The selection of quasi-Republican Dem candidates is a tail that could not have wagged the dog. The only way I can make sense of the unusually *high turnout* (for a midterm election) is by referring it to a lot of people feeling deeply issues that affect them directly, one way or another. It was a true national election rather than a bunch of fragmented local elections. The particular candidates -- yeah, that matters, but looking at the big picture that didn't make the difference... in the turnout.
What led people to take this election seriously? Well, it depends on what constituency you're talking about. (And I'm not saying there is a coherent coalition holding these constituencies together. That's what we should be working for or that they completely overlap.) My sister says that in some parts of Colorado, newly-minted citizens of Mexican origin stood in line since early with an anti-Republican design in their hearts. So, that's one. (I just read Carrol's post and I agree with Bustelo. There may be some healthy wishful thinking in what he writes, but the thrust of his argument I like.)
But there were other constituencies highly motivated that should not be discounted. The antiwar crowd. That moved a lot of people to vote with the purpose of throwing sand in the wheels of the Republican administration. (With this crowd, my guess is that the blogs did play a big role.) Even if those people couldn't control the selection of the Dem candidates (because *the menus* in the primaries depend a lot on machine politics), they did control their little vote. And I could continue listing the actions of gay people in PA. Some of my neighbors did some carpetbagging for the Dems in PA just last weekend.
Etc. And at the aggregate level, *that* made the difference.
>> changing course in the economy,
>
>Raise the minimum wage, yes; let the tax cuts expire in 2010, maybe;
> how else?
>
>> stopping the attack on immigrants,
>
> Except for the English-only law...
>
>> stopping the assault on gays [Etc.]
I was just listing what may have moved people to take the election seriously. I'm not saying the elected Dems have the ability to deliver. That's another issue.
But I guess my main point is that whether the self-fulfilling prophecy element in each interpretation will be realized or frustrated depends on what we do from this point on. The Dem politicos will say this was their victory. They have a vested interest in emphasizing short-distance politicking at the expense of mass motion. But it seems really obvious to me that the real difference was made by the turnout rate -- i.e. regular people fed up. In there lies the implicit threat I mentioned. It's up to us to make that a real factor.