“Candidates matter,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “It was a good night for Republicans but it could have been a better one. We left some on the table.”

Referring to the debate within the right about whether the party was better off losing the Delaware seat than winning with a moderate Republican like Rep. Mike Castle, who lost the GOP primary to Christine O’Donnell, Graham was even more blunt.

“If you think what happened in Delaware is ‘a win’ for the Republican Party then we don’t have a snowball’s chance to win the White House,” he said. “If you think Delaware was a wake-up call for Republicans than we have shot at doing well for a long time.”

Republicans took extra care to blast DeMint, who lavished millions on Tea Party candidates, like O’Donnell, who were not the preferred pick of the establishment. Conservatives were quick to fire back that the NRSC wasted $8 million in California on a fool’s errand trying to unseat Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) — money that could have been better spent in tight races.

But does the GOP establishment’s blame game have any merit? On an race-by-race basis, the answer is most likely yes. Castle was a popular House representative who could have easily won Delaware, while Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) negatives were high enough that only a figure as polarizing as Angle seemed capable of making him look like the lesser of two evils to Nevadans.

Candidates don’t run in a vacuum, however, and blaming the Tea Party for the loss of a few seats misses the point that the movement undoubtedly provided the energy and enthusiasm to win an historic wave in Congress. Without the Tea Party, in other words, Republicans might have beaten Reid, but it’s unlikely that longtime Democratic congressmen like Reps. John Spratt (S.C.) and Ike Skelton (Mo.) and Blue Dogs like Reps. Baron Hill (Ind.), Zack Space (Ohio) and Patrick Murphy (Pa.) would have all been defeated.

You don’t have to go far back in time to get another example of this phenomenon. The Netroots largely failed in getting liberal candidates — like Ned Lamont — elected to statewide office, but few would deny the important role the Online Left played in generating momentum for Democratic wave years in 2006 and 2008.

Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

Pundits may differ over which natural disaster analogy was most fitting — tidal wave or  earthquake? — but Republicans made large gains in both chambers of Congress and various statehouses across the country on election day. And while, at the time of writing, races in several key Western states were far from decided, the election night shaped up to be one of few surprises for either party. Republicans guaranteed themselves a majority in the House, while Democrats can rest assured that they’ll retain a majority in the Senate come 2011.

[Congress1] The evening began with quick victories for GOP Senate candidates Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida, raising expectations of a Tea Party-backed surge in Congress. Bellwether House races, including those of Rep. Barron Hill (D-Ind.), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), all went for their Republican challengers, causing pundits to revise their estimates for GOP House gains from the 50s up into the 60s, or perhaps higher.

Whether one voted for the Obama health care bill, like Rep. Tom Periello (D), or against it, like Rep. Glenn Nye (D), being a House Democrat in Virginia tonight ended up spelling doom and setting the tone for Democrats’ chances in House races across the country. Even veterans like Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C), chairman of the House Budget Committee, and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, were not spared by the GOP wave that swept Southern and Midwestern Democrats. And while DCCC head Rep. Chris Van Hollen criticized the news networks for calling the House for the GOP early, a takeover quickly began to look inevitable.

While liberal Democrats like Rep. Alan Grayson (Fla.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) also lost their seats, groups that had backed them maintained that Democrats lost because they failed to fight and defend their liberal values. “Democrats lost because party leaders never truly fought for popular progressive reforms like the public option and breaking up the big banks, leaving voters uninspired to come to the polls and vote Democratic,” wrote Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green. “What the average voter saw of Democrats was weak, watered-down change — and weak Democratic leaders who cut deals with the very Wall Street banks and insurance companies they are supposed to be fighting.

On the Senate side, however, quick and decisive victories for Gov. Joe Manchin (D) over John Raese (R) in West Virginia and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) over Linda McMahon (R) in Connecticut allowed Democrats to breathe easy about their control of the upper chamber.

“Tomorrow starts the rebuilding, the road of rebuilding America,” Manchin told supporters in his victory speech. “We must start tomorrow. And I really believe that Washington can learn a few things and a few lessons from West Virginia.” What kind of Democrat Manchin will be after having to run so far to the right to win office remains a big open question for Democrats.

A solid defeat for Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, meanwhile, at the hands of Chris Coons (D) put Republican chances of taking the Senate nearly out of reach and revived questions about the efficacy of the Tea Party in aiding a GOP wave. “It gave me no pleasure to say that she was unlikely to win,” said Karl Rove after her loss became clear. “But this again provides a lesson. This is a candidate who was right on the issues but who had mishandled a series of questions brought up by the press.”

Likewise, a victory for the Democrats’ very vulnerable majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, over Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle confirmed the dangers of a Republican nomination process that often stressed ideological purity over electability.

Democratic Senate candidates Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois got off to strong starts in the polls with high turnout and early reporting from Philadelphia and Chicago, prompting talk of small but significant upsets for the Democrats in those races. But as the rural counties began reporting their tallies, Republican Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Mark Kirk in Illinois eventually took control of both races. Likewise, Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, who shot out to an early lead over Ken Buck, fell slightly behind as more ballots were counted.

In the governors’ races, Democrats lost seats as well but managed to hang on to victories in close races in Colorado, where Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper held off his American Constitution Party challenger, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, and Minnesota, where Democrat Mark Dayton was the beneficiary of a three-way race and defeated Republican nominee Tom Emmer*. But in key races in other swing states — ones that President Obama will likely have to win to secure re-election in 2012 — Republicans can look forward to being in control. Rick Scott (R) rode the coattails of Rubio’s victory, defeating Alex Sink (D) in Florida, while the close race in Ohio never got close enough for incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), who lost to challenger John Kasich (R).

As for the fate of the Tea Party, early decisive Senate wins for Paul and Rubio were offset by decisive drubbing of Christine O’Donnell and a narrow loss for Angle. In the House, Tea Party candidate Sean Bielat, who at one point looked to be posing a credible challenge to Rep. Barney Frank (D) in Massachusetts, lost by a wide margin — but enough Tea Party candidates claimed seats to form a sizable caucus in the next Congress.

Speaking at the Grand Hyatt Ballroom in Washington, likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was unable to hold back his tears. “Listen, I’ll be brief, because we have real work to do, and this is not a time for celebration,” he said, “not when one in 10 of our fellow citizens are out of work … not when we have buried our children under a mountain of debt … not when our Congress is held in such low esteem.

“While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government. The American people have sent an unmistakable message to him tonight, and that message is: ‘change course.’ We hope President Obama will now respect the will of the people, change course, and commit to making the changes they are demanding. To the extent he is willing to do this, we are ready to work with him.”

*UPDATE: Democrat Mark Dayton continues to lead Republican Tom Emmer in the Minnesota Governor’s Race, but the margin is so slim that a recount appears likely.

While the Democrats stuck largely to defense — choosing to shore up vulnerable incumbents in 54 of the 60 districts where they reserved ad time — Republicans are going on the offensive. 39 of the 40 seats covered by the NRCC’s buy are currently held by Democrats. (Politico has a full list of the districts here.)

The disparity between the numbers of districts staked out by the two committees tell a larger story, however, in which the ambitions of the Republican committees are getting hampered by their lack of funds. The DCCC’s ad buy was for over $49 million, shoring up some vulnerable incumbents that the NRCC concluded it simply didn’t have the resources to go after. Whether independent expenditure groups, who can’t coordinate with the party but can very easily look at the NRCC’s preliminary fall list, take a cue and fill in the spending gaps remains to be seen.

The news comes a week after Spratt was named a member of the White House deficit reduction commission.

President Obama launched the panel last month after the Senate — behind a cynical group of previously supportive Republicans — killed a proposal to create a similar commission. The panel, composed of 12 members of Congress and various budget experts, will make recommendations to Congress about ways to rein in deficit spending — a concession that Capitol Hill lawmakers can’t do the job on their own.

The reconciliation bill, which will be the vehicle for the health care “fixes” the Democrats will add later this week, passed through the panel on a 21-16 vote. Two Democrats, Reps. Allen Boyd (Fla.) and Chet Edwards (Tex.), joined every Republican in opposing the measure. The process is starting in the House because, by law, any legislation that raises revenues (i.e., imposes taxes) must originate in the lower chamber.

The proposal now moves to the House Rules Committee, where Democrats are expected to attach the health reform language later this week before moving the package to the chamber floor. Democratic leaders have been mostly tight-lipped about the specifics of the health reform fixes, largely because they’re still waiting for the official cost estimates to come back from the Congressional Budget Office.

At least as controversial as the Democrats’ plan to go the reconciliation route has been their strategy, announced today, to pass the reconciliation bill alone, and then use an obscure rule to “deem” the larger Senate bill to be passed as well. Still, even Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), senior Republican on the Rules panel, conceded today that, if the Democrats can rally the votes behind the reconciliation bill, there’s nothing that GOP leaders can do to block the deeming strategy.

What does that mean? The NRCC spells it out in the press release that was sent to reporters. They’re knocking Spratt “for his authorship of a budget plan that would allow Pelosi and Congressional Democrats to ram government-run healthcare through Congress using an arcane procedure known as reconciliation.” They explain:

The budget that Spratt designed allows Democrats to strong-arm the government takeover of healthcare through the Senate with only 51 votes necessary to advance the bill, instead of the 60 votes required in the upper chamber.

So whether or not Democrats use the tools available to them and pass the health care bill, they’re going to get hammered on it. This has been obvious for weeks.

Breaking from previous administrations, Obama’s budget acknowledged that fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will actually cost money; it conceded that big pay cuts for doctors treating Medicare patients would never be realized; it admitted that tens-of-billions of dollars in revenues generated by the alternative minimum tax would never be collected because Congress steps in each year to prevent millions of middle class families from paying the tax. (This year, the AMT patch arrived in the stimulus bill — at a cost of $70 billion. All of it borrowed.) And, rather than projecting the figures out for only five years (like President George W. Bush made a habit of doing), Obama’s budget looked 10 years ahead, to lend a better picture of the fiscal imbalances that loom further down the road.

Leave it to Congress to bring some of those gimmicks back.

Both Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) this week are considering spending proposals of their own, rife with some of the very tallying dishonesties that have plagued the past. An editorial in The Washington Post today has a concise rundown.

The congressional budgets, The Post points out, look ahead only five years. They eliminate $250 billion included in Obama’s budget for more Wall Street bailouts, though the lawmakers “have no reason to believe it won’t be needed.” And Spratt acknowledges only one year of funding for the AMT patch — not the required five — while Conrad includes only three years of AMT money.  The Post offers an explanation:

There’s no mystery as to the motivation for this dishonesty. Like Mr. Obama, the Democrats in Congress want to spend more on education, energy and other popular programs. Like Mr. Obama, they don’t want to level with voters about the need to pay for such programs through increased taxes. According to the CBO, Mr. Obama’s budget plan would have the government spending more than 23 percent of gross domestic product throughout the second half of this decade while collecting less than 19 percent in revenue. Rather than fix this problem, Mr. Conrad in his budget proposal closes his eyes and wishes it away.

Last month, Conrad said Obama’s plan “is a more accurate reflection” of federal spending than past budgets, and he went after GOP critics for “things that the other side is not counting at all,” pointing specifically to the AMT patch.

Conrad also gave a curious answer when asked specifically if the AMT fix should be offset:

I believe extending the alternative minimum tax past the next couple of years should be offset. And I have taken that position consistently.  I don’t think it should be offset at this time of severe economic weakness.  I think that would be counterproductive. But beyond the next couple of years, when we are now seeing forecasts from CBO and OMB of economic recovery, at that point, I think it should be offset.

Instead he did just the opposite, funding the AMT for three years before abandoning it later.

Both the House and Senate budget panels have plans to pass their proposals out of committee today, with the full chambers expected to consider them next week.

Experts have pointed out that real change in Washington comes only in times of severe crisis. At least as it pertains to budgets, it seems that the current crisis isn’t severe enough yet.

Counting Spratt — whom The Washington Times calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “centrist counterweight” — and the think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council as “progressives” is like discovering a hotbed of conservativism at an Arlen Specter speech to the Concord Coalition, but I digress.

Goldfarb’s bit of ideological invective would have more bite if some longtime Republican senator hadn’t introduced a bill today designed to rein in weapons procurement costs. Or if certain Bush administration-holdover defense secretaries didn’t publicly recognize that “this department faces difficult choices among competing priorities and programs.” Commentary like this makes it really hard to understand why Sen. John McCain lost the election.