"The Whupping in Wisconsin: Seven Key Conclusions."

'It's time to reflect. My own instincts are to enjoy the security of knowing things have not been upset. We're not going back. Peace has arrived. It's a beautiful morning. Or, as Meade just said: "It's morning in Wisconsin." But if the recall election had gone the other way, there would have been lusty gloating and aggressive interpretation of what it all means. What a stern repudiation of conservative politics it would have been!

So I want to look at some things like Erick Erickson's 7 conclusions. (The parentheticals are my reactions.)

1. "[D]efense of public sector unions is now a non-starter..." (This was known after the primary, when Barrett defeated Falk. Then Barrett had nowhere, really, to go. But he tried, with vague themes like bringing back "Wisconsin values" and making it possible for neighbors to speak to neighbors. The whole idea of the recall stopped making sense. )

2. The "coalition of disaffected independent voters, tea party activists, and Republicans held together." (Disaffected? I'd say the independent voters — e.g., me — coolly assessed the situation in Wisconsin and decided it's best to keep going in this direction.)

3. "[T]he Republican Party’s use of technology in its GOTV efforts really paid off.... The Democrats handed the GOP a marvelous gift of a recall that went on and on and on. By the time everyone got to the gubernatorial recall, the GOP had its GOTV tweaked perfectly." (Interesting. I kept hearing about how amazing the Democrats were on getting out the vote. The GOP never contacted us. We got 2 in-person visits from Democrats in the days before the election — in addition to Dem robo-calls — but on election day, we got nothing. I think one of the individuals who encountered Meade at the door — I never answer the door — figured out we were people who shouldn't be gotten out.)

4. We can discern that "Barack Obama is extremely nervous." (He was nervous and he showed it. That tweet-only contact with Wisconsin was an embarrassing display of nervousness. It made me think of that old 2008 theme: He voted present.)

5. "[E]xit polling does not work well for recall elections." (I'd say exit polling is so deeply defective that it should be ignored. I saw CNN using exit polling to make a show out of the night, to push ratings. They have these spiffy displays, to show numbers, which John King purports to explain to Wolf Blitzer, but the numbers are — I will presume from now on — bogus. It's like finding out "American Idol" doesn't count the phoned-in voters. No. It's worse. At least "American Idol" contestants are actually singing. But John King explaining the meaning of things that are not real? Why are we watching that? Is that independently entertaining? I can imagine a reality show where contestants are given ridiculous and false factoids and then they are judged by how much we enjoy their efforts to explain them. Actually, I used to play a little game like that with my sons when they were little. It was called "What if you had to argue...?")

6. "Barack Obama is still the favorite" in Wisconsin. (Is he relying on the exit polls?! I think the Obama people are completely freaked out now. And the better Walker does over the next 5 months, making things work — or making us feel that things are working — without the static or protests and recall and with economic numbers improving, the more the people of Wisconsin may get the impression that Romney can do things like that at the national level and save us from the depredations of liberal policy.)

7. "MSNBC is consistently the most entertaining news network in America when things go badly for the left.... I was actually concerned that Ed Schultz might have a medical episode on live television last night. It was … surreal." (I didn't watch much MSNBC. I get my fill of lefty acting-out in real life here in Madison. But maybe it is a fun TV show. Lord knows the CNN attempts at explaining nonexistent things are useless.)

Erickson has an 8th item, but he won't fully commit to it as a conclusion: "Anger does not win elections." (Anger... what exactly are we talking about? Dumb rage is unappealing, but some kind of fervor is needed. I think Barrett was a bad candidate because he was basically bland on the issues, he claimed he would restore good feeling, but he would rear up with angry talking points intermittently. This doesn't convince people that it's worth ousting somebody who's in the middle of doing a job that seems to be working and who seems reasonably steady and competent.)