Joe R at
Fundamental Truths offers a "
lunch counter report" on the day after. His point: the "status quo" Republicans he talked with, if they voted for Democrats, did so because they thought the Republicans had become corrupt and needed to be voted out of office. They have not become Democrats. The whole thing is well worth reading.
As I analyze the numbers around the state, it appears that Ohio hasn't turned blue either. The corrupt were tossed, the rest were kept. Look at the congressional races, as of right now only Ney's district changed to a Democrat. Ohioans didn't vote against Bush, they didn't vote against the war, they didn't even vote to change Congress. They voted against corruption.
I haven't sat at a lunch counter lately, but I think that the same is true here in Missouri. Political orientations, and with them party identifications, don't change quickly. McCaskill won, but in the State Senate the Democrats gained just two seats and are still far from a majority.
The process by which people's views change sufficiently for them to switch from "toss
these bums out" to a default position in favor of the opposing party is gradual. It requires, for example, deciding that the party you identified with isn't serious about the issues that move you, or that other issues matter more.
A party prone to scandals will lose some elections. But the lesson, for that party and for their voters, may not be that they should alter their orientation. Scandals, from an ideological standpoint, are "aberrations". They can be treated as experimental errors that leave the underlying theory untouched.
If the Lunch Counter Republicans take that route, then the Democratic victories in Ohio, or here in Missouri, though they are certainly good news, are only the beginning.