8 a.m. ET: It's the morning after the morning after, and already the conventional wisdom about Tuesday's elections has begun to shift. The initial reaction -- Republicans had a great day -- has shifted to this: Republicans had a great day, but both parties should watch their backs.

After much of Wednesday's coverage focused on the GOP's banner wins, Thursday's hones in on a broad-based undercurrent of anger and frustration in the electorate that could hurt incumbents of all stripes next fall. Associated Press ledes: "Voters' memo to politicians: We're angry and fearful, mostly about jobs and the economy. We want tangible solutions, not partisan bickering or intraparty spats. And we'll vote either party out of office if we don't think you're listening." E.J. Dionne picks up that theme, saying "the disaffection in Virginia and New Jersey -- and the unexpected narrowness of New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's reelection margin, despite his record-breaking campaign spending -- should worry all incumbents, particularly governors seeking reelection next year. And after their strong showings in the past two national elections, Democrats happen to constitute a large share of the pool of incumbents."

Of course, both parties have their internal problems now. So which to focus on first? The New York Times writes, "Republicans emerged from Tuesday’s elections energized by victories in Virginia and New Jersey, but their leaders immediately began maneuvering to avoid a prolonged battle with conservative activists over what the party stands for and how to regain power." (Mike Allen doesn't think much of the Gray Lady's news judgment: "HOME TEAM -- NYT fronts story on GOP divisions, misses biggest story in politics: Democrats are the ones more divided now because of red-state fears that independents are taking flight.") Speaking of which, Politico reports that Tuesday's results "have congressional Democrats focused like never before on jobs — their own." The Washington Post reports that "moderate and conservative Democrats took a clear signal from Tuesday's voting, warning that the results prove that independent voters are wary of Obama's far-reaching proposals and mounting spending, as well as the growing federal debt." The Wall Street Journal says Democrats are "scrambling to renew the coalition that elected" Obama after independents deserted the party in droves Tuesday.

For Eric Alterman, the glass if half-full, as he writes that "Republicans are on the verge of civil war" and argues that Tuesday "was a victory exclusively for Republican centrists." Karl Rove observes, "The trend here is that suburban and independent voters moved into the GOP column. The overall shift away from Democrats was 13 points in Virginia, 12 points in New Jersey, and eight points in Pennsylvania." Michael Barone takes a different lesson, writing that unions and their legislative agenda "may have been the biggest loser of all." (Were many voters Tuesday really rebelling against the card-check bill? It's possible they were, but where's the evidence?) Though some members remain wary of voting for health-care reform, the odds that a bill will pass eventually appeared just as strong Wednesday as they did Tuesday. Not so with climate change legislation, which could well be the biggest victim of Democratic nervousness heading into the election year. Senate Democrats plan to vote a climate bill out of committee Thursday despite a GOP boycott, but there's no sign of floor action soon.

The House appears poised to consider its version of health-care reform Saturday, even as Democratic leaders continue their final scramble for majority support. "As of Wednesday," the Wall Street Journal reports, "House leaders didn't appear to have secured the 218 votes they need to pass the bill. They were moving to quickly swear in two Democrats elected Tuesday, which would give the party 258 seats in the House and allow leaders to lose as many as 40 Democratic votes without losing their majority." The biggest stumbling block continues to be abortion, and the New York Times writes that the latest "proposed compromise satisfied neither supporters nor opponents of abortion rights." Democrats are expected to get some good news Thursday, in the form of an endorsement of their bill by AARP.

House Republicans, meanwhile, got the score for their alternative health bill back from the CBO. The party spin is emphasizing the fact that their measure "will lower health care premiums by up to 10 percent and reduce the deficit by $68 billion over 10 years without imposing tax increases," but much of the press coverage focused on the CBO's finding that, as the Washington Post puts it, "the proposal would barely dent the ranks of the uninsured. The measure would cover only 3 million additional people at a cost of $60 billion through 2019. ... It would leave more than 52 million Americans uninsured a decade from now." Jonathan Cohn argues that Republicans' claims about lowering premiums are misleading, and the liberal group Americans United for Change already has an ad set to air that will mock the GOP measure as the "Health Insurance Industry Profits Protection Act."

The AP writes on Democrats' proposals to create high-risk pools for the "medically uninsurable," and notes that "concerns are being raised about the design" of the pools -- both because you must be uninsured for six months before you qualify, and because the money set aside for the program may not be enough to sustain it. The Boston Globe reports: "Americans’ opinion of the health care proposals now before Congress is eerily similar to public sentiment about the Clinton health reform initiatives in 1994, according to an analysis published online yesterday in The New England Journal of Medicine - and that may not bode well for Democrats."