Initial thoughts on the election. First, the recriminations!

* Mark Levin: Thanks. It was only, like, 16 points. Not that anyone should be surprised–after all, Levin’s the one person in America who likes Stephen A. Smith. And besides, it’s probably all the fault of the RINO’s anyway. After all, Levin is “an extraordinary intellect.”

* How’s that Limbaugh Rule working out? Or has it been downgraded to a mere hypothesis?

* It would be nice for the GOP to have Senate seats in CA and CT. And eMeg seems like a very nice and capable woman. But on the other hand, it’s encouraging to see that money can’t always buy votes. Unless you’re Mitt Romney, that is. (I mean the “encouraging” part, not the “can’t by votes” part.)

* Virginia was a purple state 24 months ago. Last night the 4 of the state’s 6 incumbent Dems lost and a fifth is on life-support, leading by 500 votes with 99% reporting.

* Jon Runyan wins in NJ-3. It’ll be fun having him in Washington. Expect chop blocks.

* If Lisa Murkowski holds on, then Mitch McConnell deserves some credit for finessing the situation after her primary loss. Remember the reports that the leadership was going to strip her of committee assignments, etc. if she mounted a write-in campaign? Good thing the GOP thought better of it.

* You’ve got to respect what Harry Reid did, coming from behind and grinding out a +5 win as the third most unpopular politician in America. Even while his son was losing the governor’s race by 12 points. Sure, the GOP helped him out by nominating Angle, but even so. Professional politicians win elections. Reid is a pro.

* That said, I would have gladly traded a Reid win for a Feingold, just on general principle. I won’t miss Feingold’s votes, but I’ll miss his general presence in the Democratic party.

* Where will the final House number be? It’s +58 now and we’re still waiting on 11 races. I suspect the GOP will end somewhere near +65.

* Remember when Obama told nervous House Democrats that “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.” Turns out he was right!

* Data to be on the look-out for today:

* What was the won-loss record for Dems in districts carried by McCain?

* How close were the races at the margins? Did the Dems avert a much larger disaster by winning a bunch of races by a couple hundred votes, or did they have bad luck by losing a bunch of very tight contests?

* How did the Obamacare Dem dissenters do? Was staying away on that bill enough?

* What was the win/loss ratio on incumbents polling under 50 percent (but still ahead) at the end?

Update 10:30: This may be too deep a reading, but Sarah Palin emerges as somewhat of a loser from last night. A number of her candidates did well, and she can point to Nikki Haley in South Carolina and a number of other pick-ups in which she batted comfortably over .500. But her three most high-profile candidates–Joe Miller, Christine O’Donnell, and Sharon Angle–all got housed.

What’s more, those three candidates were each, in their own way, minor proxies for Palin as a political commodity. Miller tested free-base Tea Party-ism; O’Donnell tested the strength of anti-anti-Palinism sprung from deeply unfair treatment from the press and the left; and Angle tested the ability of a flawed candidate with high negatives to compete with a deeply unpopular liberal, Democratic incumbent on a relatively even playing field. You could read too much into this, but each of these losses undercuts, to some degree, the thesis that Palin could win a 2012 general election. (Mind you, I wouldn’t completely discount this thesis yet.)

But the thing which struck me as most problematic for Palin was a moment on Fox last night where, asked about O’Donnell’s loss, she said something to the effect of, Yeah, well the exit polling shows Castle would have lost, too, so why dontcha ask the lying MSM about that? (I paraphrase.)

This strikes me as not the kind of answer Palin should be giving. Her bread-and-butter is (or should be) authenticity. The correct response for O’Donnell supporters this morning goes somewhere along the lines of: “Yeah, it didn’t work out for us, but at the end of the day, the risk seemed worth the reward. If you’re going to make broad gains anyway, you might as well make some bold ideological bets. Some won’t pay out. And besides, did Republicans really need another guy in the Senate who’s been a professional politician since Calvin Coolidge graduated high school?”

That’s just about the only sensible response. Palin taking a Levin-like I-have-an-answer-for-everything is fine, except that that’s not who she’s supposed to be. She’s supposed to be a truth-teller, like a political Simon Cowell.

Update 12:25: Best lines so far:

* Rush Limbaugh was the big winner!

* Mark Levin says everything is great for conservatives. Because compromise is “irrational.” Sounds like he’s auditioning to be an Obama boogeyman.

Update 12:45: Meanest thing ever said about Jon Stewart:

Maybe it’s not fair to blame Jon Stewart for all this. He’s a comedian, after all. But he’s the left’s closest equivalent to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

Fightin’ words.

Update 12:58: The Sex Cannon is BACK baby! Two tons of twisted steel and sex appeal, firing that ball in there deep, real deep, where it’s gotta be, ’cause he’s not a gunslinger, he’s a–GUH–WATCH THE BLINDSIDE!

(Where’s the Emo Eagles fan? We need him.)

Also, Tony Dungy and Rex Ryan intervene to help a troubled teen sort out some strange feelings he’s been having recently. Don’t miss this Very Special Episode of KSK.

Update 2:50: Dana Milbank writes, “At Rupert Murdoch’s cable network, the entity that birthed and nurtured the Tea Party movement, Election Day was the culmination of two years of hard work to bring down Barack Obama – and it was time for an on-air celebration of a job well done.”

While the thrust of what Milbank is getting at is true–Glenn Beck has played a large (if not irreplaceable) role in stoking the Tea Party movement, the entire Tea Party moment began on CNBC with non-politico Rick Santelli. Does no one remember?