And now what?

In '94, the Republicans won because they presented a list of ideas for the voters to consider. It's true that Pres. Clinton was very unpopular. However, The Contract with America was a clear expression of what the Republicans stood for.

This year, the Democrats avoided positions. They spoke in extreme generalities.

What does this party stand for? Nobody knows.

We keep hearing that Iraq worked against Republicans. Then comes this poll:

"While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats' victory "a good thing," even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration "from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism," and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals."

Guess what? See Poll: Most Doubt Dems Have Plan for Iraq:

"Though voters apparently embraced the Democratic mantra of changing course in Iraq, a majority of the public did not detect a clear Democratic blueprint for ending the war. Fifty-seven percent of all adults in the AP-Ipsos poll said Democrats do not have a plan for Iraq; 29 percent said they do."

Read more:

"That finding strikes at the heart of a Democratic dilemma. The party has been of one voice in criticizing President Bush's strategy for the war but has been more equivocal on how to move in a different direction."

So what happened on election day? People voted for change and for a party that does not have an idea of what it wants to change.

William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and author of How to Win Arguments . See Understanding the election results :

"The Democrats had practically nothing to do with it. They had no policy proposals to speak of -- least of all on Iraq, which they insisted was the central issue."

It gets more bizarre. See Rasmussen:

"The Democratic strategy of casting the election as a referendum on Republican conduct and policy has given Democrats majority control of Congress. But many voters have little impression of key leaders expected to now run the show (see survey details and crosstabs)."

What do these guys stand for? See Consensus on Iraq eludes Democrats By Rowan Scarborough:

"Democrats in charge of national security in Congress plan to showcase the Iraq war as their leading issue in 2007, conducting a series of hearings and promoting legislation that would force President Bush to start bringing home troops next year. But Democrats at this point lack a consensus on Iraq."

Am I the only one who thinks that this is crazy? The Democrats run a campaign without specifics and win an election.