Just a couple quick observations here...

• Happily, the party of Gaknar did, in fact, turn out to be actual size. Josh Marshall was right: Rove was bluffing.


• That bluff may actually have hurt the Republicans (just like Rove's bluff in 2000), by subverting Republican attempts to game the expectations. A lot of us were concerned that a Democratic win would be downplayed or redefined as defeat; based on last night's (CNN & MSNBC) coverage, that didn't happen. "Stunning" and "blowout" were words I heard more than once over the course of the evening.


• As Steve M pointed out a while ago, it wasn't about the Foley scandal. We know that because Reynolds, Shimkus, Boehner, and Hastert--the people most involved, apart from Foley himself--all won re-election. This election can't be dismissed as distorted by a single scandal; this was clearly a referendum on the Republican party as a whole.


• And as obvious as this is, it still bears repeating: a 49-49 Senate (or 51-59 or 49-51 or however it turns out) doesn't mean the voters were evenly divided. Democrats won 53.7% of the votes in Senate races; Republicans won 42.6%. The nature of the Senate obscures that, but make no mistake: this was a huge repudiation of the Republicans.


• Finally: What Bulworth said. Times, like, a gazillion.