And the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. What does that mean since it is but the slightest of majorities? According to the NYTimes:

…in symbolic terms, controlling the White House and both houses of Congress would count for a lot. And even if pushing some major legislation through remains beyond the President’s capacity, he will no doubt take yesterday’s voting pattern as a mandate to pursue his goal of ousting President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, by force if need be. Control of the Senate would also give Mr. Bush a better shot at winning confirmation for any conservative nominees he may choose in the event of Supreme Court vacancies.

Two years from now, yesterday’s contests for governor may seem to have been more important than those for Congress. Excluded for years from the governor’s mansions in many of the states with large blocks of electoral votes, the Democrats regained several of them, which should greatly assist their 2004 presidential campaign. Democrats swept back into power in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois, the kind of Mid-Atlantic and Midwest states that have formed the engine-room of American politics for generations.

Andrew Sullivan calls it Bush’s Triumph. Mickey Kaus says this points to the fallacy of the 50-50 nation.

Closer to how I feel, William Saletan says the big story is that the Democrats have no story and John Marshall agrees.

Along the same lines is Oliver Willis who always takes the words right out of my mouth – put away the thoughts of “mandate” you Righties. It was way, way too close. What’s to blame is weak national Democratic leadership. Very weak, wishy-washy, what-do-they-care-about national leadership.

By the way… one kick ass Democrat did win for governor here in PA

…You may not remember this, but I do: When the year began, the near-unanimous consensus was that Philadelphia’s former mayor would not be the state’s next governor. Bob Casey? Probably. Mike Fisher? Perhaps. Ed Rendell? Not likely.

The man was too brash and too urban, too liberal on social issues, too daring in his policies, too closely identified with the big city, a place still held in contempt by the conservative, gun-loving hinterlands.

He wouldn’t win. Check that. He couldn’t win. He might run a respectable race. But he’d never make it over the top. His flaws were fundamental.

Or so it seemed to politicians, journalists – myself included, and even to some of Rendell’s own closest advisers.

So what happened? How did the man wind up turning conventional wisdom on its head?

I’ve worked and lived in the ‘burbs just outside Philly. Hatred for the city loomed large in many conversations. It was always dangerous exposing my roots. Yesterday much bad blood was overcome.

According to the Daily News, you don’t need to worry about any favoring of Philly going forward. It’s just common sense. Fisher tried hard to use that as a scare tactic. Didn’t work. It might have if the Democrats tried to push some lessor candidate though.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: voters at the center of both parties tended to side with Rendell. Think you national Democrats!

The Daily News has some fun explaining the Ed Rendell style. He’s down to earth. A real guy.

After doing some surfing at Google News I found this perfect quote from The Oregonian:

Senate Majority Leader (at least as of Tuesday morning) Tom Daschle, and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt campaigned through the country for their candidates, but had little to say where they arrived. In a Daschle visit to Oregon in August, the majority leader listened to Oregon Senate candidate Bill Bradbury attack Bush’s economic policy, nodded — and said nothing.

When you say nothing, sometimes people hear you.

…Most candidates for governor — such as Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania — have to actually say something about what they plan to do. When they say it strongly, voters often respond.

Democratic leaders not only need to think about something to do next. They need to think of something to say.

They should get some help from their governors, from people like Rendell, who not only spoke out firmly this year, but spent the 2000 campaign, when he was the Democratic national chairman, warning that Gore wasn’t saying anything and was going to pay for it.

It turned out he’s been right twice.

Most important, as the Inquirer concludes:

…now a Philadelphian has won, big, by calling for robust action. Pigs have flown; the conventional wisdom is scrambled. Maybe, just maybe, lawmakers will find that speaking up for genuine solutions is less risky in the long run than sticking to the old, sniping ways.