There will be a great deal of speculation about why a career Army doctor who had risen to the rank of Major would take a pair of handguns and blast away at his fellow soldiers, killing a dozen and wounding over 30 others. Was it because he was a Muslim, and he opposed our policies? Did he fear deployment into Iraq or Afghanistan? Was he being harassed due to his faith? Or, like so many other lone gunman from so many other instances in the past, was it a combination of factors that led him to lose his mental bearings? Let the speculation begin. The one thing we won't hear much about, though, in the mainstream media, is the possibility that he was an Al Qaeda sleeper agent. That will only come to fore if this attack is followed by others in the near future (I do not suspect that will happen, like most, I find myself buying into the view that he is a lone nut, like the others, but I do not dismiss out of hand the other possibility).

More thoughts about the election results....

Paul Krugman thinks the President is facing his Anzio, a battle from WWII where American soldiers landed behind the German lines in Italy, had a chance with bold action to seize the initiative and turn the German lines but, instead, hunkered down and were trapped in a small pocket by German forces. Krugman thinks Obama could have succeeded with bolder moves, including a much larger stimulus, but has bogged down and may now be politically trapped. Not a bad analogy unless you believe, as I do, that a bigger stimulus would not have made any difference, and would have exacerbated our already immense debt and deficit problem.

Charles Krauthammer says the election results disprove the myth of a great realignment which sprang from the election of '08.

David Brooks tries to explain the behavior of the Independents. I think he is not quite on track, because he expects to see some rationality and consistency. Independents are, I think, the way they are because they are non-ideological in their political thinking, which makes that thinking inconsistent and, oftentimes, irrational. Their behavior is based on events and the perception of events. They were unhappy with Bush, the wars, the GOP Congress and, finally, the financial crisis, so they swung to the handsome, charismatic young man from Chicago and his rhetoric of hope and change. Now they are unhappy with unemployment, the wars, the Democratic Congress, the bailouts, and the exploding debt and deficits. So they are turning against that man and his people, and are looking for another man on a white horse to save them. It is not rational, but it is very human. Daniel Henninger describes that political volatility and its consequences.

Kim Strassel sees a tipping point for Obama and the Democrats.

Jay Cost is laughing at the spin which gives more credence to GOP divisions by looking at NY-23, than the much bigger divisions in the Democratic Party when one looks at Virginia, New Jersey, and the debate over the health reform bill which Nancy Pelosi has set for a vote in the House tomorrow.

MORE ELECTION FALLOUT

Here are some links to articles about the election results...

Their poor performance in the suburbs is a very bad sign for Democrats. I agree.

The "Permanent Democratic Majority" seems to be unravelling. I never believed in the 'permanent' majority, anyway. Of course, I never believed it when Republicans were touting their own version of that story. There are no 'permanent' political majorities in American politics. There have been some long lasting trends, like the Democratic Congressional majorities during the FDR/New Deal era (which lasted roughly from 1932 to 1994), but these trends are never 'permanent', because the religious/ethnic composition of our population changes, the great, defining issues change, and the parties themselves change.

Peter Wehner says Democrats have reason to be afraid, to be very afraid. His analysis is detailed, and mirrors my own thinking on the subject.

Markos Moulitsas hangs his hat on the turnout aspect of the equation. He believes if his Progressive fellow travellers were more enthusiastic about Obama and the Democrats, they would turn out and work harder for them. There is some truth in this, but I think he does not give proper weight to the shift in the Independent vote.

Castellanos celebrates the GOP resurgence while Teixeira tells Democrats not to worry.

David Broder, on the other hand, thinks Democrats should worry.

ABOUT LAST NIGHT...

One can expect quite a lot of ink and hot air to be expended over the coming weeks as highly paid political pundits and analysts (as well as a few slobs like me) pore over the results of last night's major political contests and try to determine what, if any, trends can be discerned that could carry over into the much more significant mid-term elections coming up one year from now.

Most importantly, Democrats are whistling as they pass the graveyard if they dismiss out of hand the smashing victory won by the Republicans in Virginia, and the narrow victory of Christie over Corzine in New Jersey. As I watched the coverage on CNN last night (while switching over from time-to-time to Fox and then to the Celtics as they smashed the Sixers much the way the Republicans were smashing the Democrats in Virginia) I had to laugh at some of the commentary from their panel of experts, all but one of whom is clearly a political liberal, as they tried to distance these results from President Obama's job performance. At times I wanted to scream at them as they miss the obvious, or deliberately refuse to discuss it. So, since they won't do it, I guess I while.

Here are the lessons about last night, as I see them, and they apply to all elections.

1. American elections are won and lost by the people in the middle, who do not hold strong ideological opinions, are not extremely well educated about political issues (although they may be extremely well educated in other aspects of life), and do not vote reliably Republican or Democrat. They are sometimes called "Independents", because many of these people now elect to register without a Republican or Democrat party affiliation, or they are called "swing voters", because they can swing back and forth between the parties as circumstances change. The rest of the electorate is made up of hard-core voters who will vote for a person based on the party label almost without fail. There are fewer of these voters than once was the case, but they still make up a significant portion of the voting public.

2. American elections are won and lost based on who actually comes out to vote. This is called "turnout". This is oftentimes influenced by the enthusiasm generated by a political candidate, a particular issue, or a particular set of economic or political circumstances (war, economic dislocation, etc.).

3. American elections are won and lost based on what is happening RIGHT NOW. Americans have, in general, a poor appreciation of history, and very short term ways of thinking. This is true in all walks of our socio-economic lives, as anyone who has been in a sales meeting or board meeting of any company of any size can attest.

Therefore, keeping those three bedrock facts in mind, we can properly analyze last night's results. Republicans won, and won big, in Virginia because, unlike last year, Independents swung heavily toward the GOP candidate, while the most monolithic Democratic voting block, African-Americans, did not turn out as heavily as they did for Barack Obama one year ago. Last year those Independents swung toward Obama just enough, aided by high African-American participation, to give Obama the edge. Why did Independents swing to the GOP candidates? Because, RIGHT NOW, the economy still looks to be in a shambles, with unemployment high and getting higher, and the President's prescriptions seem either irresponsible or ineffective to a high percentage of these folks. So, combine that with the local issues, the relative performance of the candidates in the race, and you get a swing to the GOP.

Republicans won the governor's office in New Jersey for the same reasons, but because New Jersey is a more heavily Democratic state, the margin was much smaller. Again, lower African-American turnout (and, perhaps, "progressive" voters disenchanted with Corzine or even with the President and the Democrats generally) plus a swing of Independents to the GOP helped turn the tide.

In the NY-23 congressional race the Democrat won after the Republican dropped out and endorsed him over his Conservative Party opponent. It was still close and, if you add the GOP candidate's votes to the Conservative's votes, the Conservative would have narrowly won. Some of those folks who went out to vote in that district yesterday just were unable to pull the lever for someone without that "R" next to their name.

So, what can we project going forward?

First, health reform in it's present form is dead. Harry Reid is already hinting that he will delay it until next year. I can see no reason why the Blue Dog Democrats in the House are going to risk their political careers to sign on to this massive, incomprehensible government boondoggle. They have enough trouble without handing that albatross around their necks.

Second, the GOP will now see a huge surge in fundraising as Wall Street and the big business community at-large sees the winds shifting, and individual donations from conservatives around the country will increase.

Third, the GOP will gain serious traction in recruiting attractive candidates for Congress all across the country, especially in conservative districts now represented by Democrats. These men and women will see an opportunity to win, and the national GOP will have the cash and the expertise to try and help them do just that.

All of these things, plus the historic pattern of the party out of power gaining seats in mid-term elections, bodes well for the GOP, despite the fact that polling data shows a public that still does no trust them much (the polling shows a "Conservative" country, not a "Republican" one). If, when voters go to the polls in November 2010, the economic climate RIGHT THEN is as bleak or bleaker than it is RIGHT NOW, it could, and should, be a political tsunami like we saw in 1994.

It is election day in many places, like a congressional district in upstate New York that could elect a Conservative to Congress. The results in NY-23 could say something about the national electorate, especially the conservative and Republican part of the electorate.

It seems that some liberals, looking at the NY-23 race, see a bogey woman manipulating the process, by the name of Sarah Palin.

The hand wringing and hair pulling by liberals and their friends in the media may be more about what they see happening in the country at-large, rather than the machinations of GOP big shots, as the mainstream of America more and more resembles mainstream conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism.

In Virginia, political expert Larry Sabato says Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell will win in a landslide, carrying a number of Republicans with him in that state's House of Delegates.

Still, New Jersey is the place to watch. If Christie beats Corzine, and that is still a big "if", as polls show a very close race, then the GOP will really have something to crow about, and Democrats will have something to worry about.

Some real interesting polling data as we approach the elections for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. In Virginia, it seems McDonnell (the Republican) is well ahead. In New Jersey, which should be a good state for the Democrats, the race is neck-and-neck. Meanwhile, in the special election for NY-23 the Republican dropped out, which leaves it between the Conservative Party candidate and the Democrat.

Robert J. Samuelson, watching our deficits and debt explode, ponders the possibility of America going broke and defaulting on the debt.

Nouriel Roubini, who was right about the financial collapse, warns of another bubble bursting.

THE CLOCK IS TICKING

Iran rejects deal to ship out their enriched uranium to Russia for further enriching is the big news of the day, as far as I am concerned.

Western negotiators and government leaders had hoped that this could be an artful solution to the fact that the Iranians had enriched their uranium in contravention of the agreements within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties. They would be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains, so to speak, enriched under Russian supervision to the level necessary for use in a nuclear reactor, for purposes of generating power, which the Iranians claim is the reason they have been enriching the uranium in the first place. If they were really trying to make it 'weapons grade', then the enrichment done by the Russians would be insufficient. Under the agreement everyone would save face, and the threat of further sanctions against Iran by the international community, or an Israeli attack on their nuclear installations, would be averted.

I have believed all along, and many people far more intelligent and knowledgeable than I am about the region have also said, that the Iranians were simply stalling for time. Given enough time, they could complete the necessary enrichment of enough uranium to complete a working nuclear weapon. By extending negotiations as long as possible they could give themselves that time, as well as sowing discord and disagreement among the international community.

At some point, the Israelis will decide that they can wait no longer, and they will attack. In order to succeed, they will need to access Iraqi airspace, now controlled by the United States. What will the President do?

Ralph Peters says we are wasting our blood and treasure trying to build a nation in Afghanistan.

Thomas Friedman agrees, saying that we need to focus on Iraq.

I think the main thing to understand is that Iraq is more important because it is at the heart of the Arab world, which is where Islam originated. If Islamist extremism is to be discredited and defeated, it must be done by the Arabs themselves. The surge worked in Iraq because the Sunni Arabs of central Iraq were disgusted and frightened by the brutality and extremism of the Al Qaeda fanatics who had come to their country, ostensibly to fight the Americans. These Al Qaeda people were, mostly, Arabs, but they were foreign Arabs, Saudis, Yemenis, etc., with very little in common with the Sunni Arab tribes of Iraq. Once the locals decided they had had enough of these foreigners, they rose up against them. Fortunately, President Bush decided to help them with a surge of U.S. troops and resources. so they were able to defeat Al Qaeda.

In Afghanistan, on the other hand, while the Al Qaeda guys are still a bunch of foreigners, the nucleus of the insurgency are locals. The Taliban is indigenous, made up of men from the Pashtun tribes that dominate most of the country, especially in the south and west. Perhaps, as Friedman believes, it would be best to lessen our footprint. While that would mean the Taliban would come to dominate the country again, with terrible consequences for the locals, it might bring Bin Laden out of hiding, thus giving us a better chance of finally getting him. The only other alternative, it seems to me, is an increased presence in Afghanistan with an open ended, potentially decades long, commitment. I just don't think that makes any sense.

More signs of trouble for the Democrats in 2010, as recent polling suggests that Americans are moving to the Right.

Obama is increasingly seen, it seems to me, as weak and ineffective, with a tendency to believe that he can push the nation to the left simply by the power of his personality. Meanwhile, Pelosi and Reid don't look so great, either. With the economy still not performing well, and jobs still disappearing, the trends all point to a big protest vote at the next opportunity, unless things turn around dramatically.