It's over.
The way-too-long, way-too-expensive 2014 political campaigns have finally ended, except for a few scattered runoffs and recounts.
So what have we learned from the campaign and results? Most obviously, we have seen that political television advertising and the related spending have become more and more absurd and disgraceful.
More than 1 million TV election ads were aired nationally -- just for U.S. Senate seats.
The Center for Responsive Politics estimates nearly $4 billion was spent on this year's elections. Much of that money comes not from the candidates' campaigns but from outside groups not encumbered by disclosure requirements. Republicans succeeded in making this primarily an election about President Barack Obama, and that tactic worked. It was the constant drumbeat in advertising aimed at the Democratic candidates. Every Democratic incumbent was attacked relentlessly for voting with the president 93 or 97 percent of the time, even if there was no factual basis for those numbers.
Democratic candidates from Arkansas and several other states where Democrats were hoping to hold on to Senate seats sailed right into a perfect storm and went down with the Obama ship -- even the intended life preservers thrown to them by Bill Clinton couldn't save them.
Election night was the biggest night in Republican history in Arkansas as candidate after candidate rolled up impressive margins of victory. For the first time, Arkansas is a full-fledged member of the Republican red state society, joining most of its regional neighbors who established their membership long ago.
What else did the elections tell us, and what should we expect as a result of the 2014 campaigns and balloting?
Compromise has been a dirty word in Washington in recent times, and if it remains so, we are likely to see continuation of gridlock -- despite the newly acquired power on the Republican side.
Republicans will now lead and have a majority on all the congressional committees, which certainly enhances their ability to set the agenda and control the flow of legislation and nominees. However, they have proven that a willful minority can play the obstructionist game very successfully. In the Senate, it is often necessary to muster 60 votes to block filibusters and bring legislation to a vote. Republicans aren't near the 60-vote threshold. Further, they still have to contend with the man in the White House and his veto power.
Nonetheless, the Republicans will have an opportunity to show what they can accomplish and to appease an unhappy electorate. Having portrayed Obama as weak and ineffectual, Republicans will have to be productive to avoid being similarly labeled.
On some issues there appears to be a possible path to success. The Keystone pipeline could draw some Democratic support (defeated Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor was a supporter of Keystone), though its approval could face a presidential veto. Other measures, including trade agreements, might find sufficient bipartisan support.
But Republicans must also contend with deep divisions within their own party and a field of presidential aspirants who will seek to stake out positions that may underline those divisions. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, favors an aggressively confrontational approach. The "Repeal Obamacare" battle cry will continue to echo and elements of the Affordable Care Act seem certain to be excised, if not the entire package.
For all the criticism that came from Senate Republicans when Democratic Leader Harry Reid changed the 60-vote requirement for approval of executive branch nominees to merely a simple majority, it is doubtful Mitch McConnell, the majority leader-to-be, will want to change that now his party has a majority.
Although the elections produced major Republican victories, survey data indicate voter unhappiness not just with President Obama, but with both parties and Congress in general. The polls point to growing antipathy toward gridlock and increasing support for politicians who are willing to work together. A recent national poll showed 50 percent support for those officeholders willing to compromise, up from 34 percent in 2010, while support for inflexibility fell from 57 percent to 42 percent.
Many voters still rank the state of the economy as a major concern, but, ironically, economic indicators, often the primary factor in influencing election outcomes, are relatively favorable at this point.
It appears a variety of other factors influenced Tuesday's outcome, centering around general discontent with Washington inertia and national leadership, including a president widely seen as indecisive. Concerns about a range of topics -- ebola, ISIS, domestic surveillance, problems with veterans' care and Secret Service screw-ups -- all contribute to a palpable uneasiness.
Meanwhile, let's all take time to catch our breaths before the 2016 campaigns begin in earnest -- as if they haven't already.
HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR.
Commentary on 11/09/2014