The overall message from voters yesterday was for change. With elections falling pretty much as predicted, Democrats regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives and left the U.S. Senate nearly equally balanced.

Disillusion, frustration and the desire for change are not unusual in the middle of a president's second term. So, President George W. Bush's party would have been expected to face stiff challenges in the 2006 elections regardless of other circumstances. And more than anything, growing frustration over Iraq and ethics scandals allowed Democrats to successfully nationalize the election — and score major victories without clearly defining their own agenda.

In a nationally watched race, this strategy was successful for Sen.-elect Bob Casey Jr., who was selected by national Democratic officials as the right candidate to defeat the staunch conservative and sometimes-polarizing Sen. Rick Santorum. Casey's strategy of keeping a low profile, offering few specific ideas and continually linking Santorum to Bush and the Iraq war succeeded.

But with yesterday's significant Democratic victory, party officials soon will have to tell voters what they plan to do to manifest the change they promised. Democrats will have to reveal what they are for, rather than simply repeating campaign talking points noting that they oppose Bush and are unhappy with the state of affairs in Iraq.

Many of the Democratic winners in yesterday's elections across the country are considered moderate, and even conservative, and there is expected to be something of a culture clash when the new moderate Democrats have to work with their liberal leadership in Congress.

Moving toward the center clearly worked in many of the successful Democratic campaigns yesterday, but coming together to speak with a unified voice might be more difficult.

Voters hungry for change have shifted the balance of power in Washington. And in Harrisburg, there also is evidence of more desire for change and reform — at least as it relates to the controversial pay-raise vote of 2005.

In Western Pennsylvania, the most notable example of the continued anger over the pay raise and the related use of unvouchered expenses is found in the defeat of state Rep. Mike Veon of Beaver. Veon, the second-ranking Democrat in the state House, was the only lawmaker to vote against the repeal of the pay raise.

Voters in Pennsylvania's May primary defeated 17 incumbents, and Republican voters rejected two powerful party leaders in Sen. Robert Jubelirer and Sen. David Brightbill,who were seen as complicit in the pay-raise vote. Now, Democrats, by rejecting Veon, are doing their part in pushing for change in the way Harrisburg does business.

Voters across the U.S. and Pennsylvania have cast their ballots for change. Now, the political parties in Washington and Harrisburg will have to work to redefine themselves — and to deliver the change that voters want. If they don't deliver, there is a good chance that in the next election or two they will be replaced by another crop of challengers promising change.

The prospect for change creates a mood of hope, and the significant victories recorded by Democrats in yesterday's election has energized the party.

But newly elected lawmakers from both parties should guard against becoming part of the culture of partisan politics in Washington and Harrisburg that voters yesterday largely rejected.

The negative campaign ads have stopped and the tough races have ended. But now the winners and their party leadership have to figure out what they are going to do to deliver the change they promised.

Voters will be waiting and watching.