Virginia: A pattern is just a pattern, and has nothing to do with the outcome of any particular election. The pattern you mention, however, is not followed every cycle across the whole ticket. Nor do overwhelming landslides fit neatly into the pattern.

And while Deeds may have been a lousy candidate, this was the same guy who lost a squeaker to McDonnell four years ago. What changed? Well, one thing that changed is Barry is in the WH, and Barry was campaigning for Deeds. That was not all that caused the landslide, but it had more to do with it than your pattern theory.

But you seem to be blaming the media, too, when you say Dems were told Deeds can’t win. That’s just wrong. And you’re wrong about Barry’s popularity in VA. He’s below 50%. People blamed the economy, and Barry is, rightly or wrongly, considered to be in charge of the direction it goes. Whether or not people say it is a referendum is not nearly as important as if it is perceived as one. Many see it as such.

As for exit polls, I, personally, believe many folks are not comfortable with saying they oppose Barry, so the exit polls may not be all that accurate. Some people either fear being labeled a racist, or fear they may actually be one because so many keep claiming opposition to Barry is racist. It eases their mind to say they like Barry, but support those who work to oppose him.

New Jersey: Again with your patterns. It’s a wonder they even bother to hold the elections. We could save money simply by determining results based on patterns, the stock market, SB winners, and Redskins’ home games.

You seem to keep falling back on Dems not showing up, and that supports my position. Barry pushed hard for Dems to support these candidates, but folks didn’t listen to him. Yes, the quality of the candidates has an impact on that, but so does Barry’s dropping popularity. You keep talking about majority approval (although you are incorrect for VA), but neglect to mention how far his numbers have fallen. The only reasin he’s above 50%, on average, is because of his inflated numbers in the beginning, when everyone wanted to give him a chance. Don’t worry, he’ll be below 50% by February, at the latest (although he’s already dipped there and come back up).

NY-23: See my previous analysis. It’s far more accurate, and far more objective.

I’m not saying, nor have I ever said, that Barry was the only reason the statewide races went red. I just get tired of Barry apologists who want to try to make it look like he had nothing to do with the losses, but he clearly had something to do with the one win. That’s just dishonest, and not, in any way, objective. Even if there’s some way to prove he was in no way a liability (which there is not), his weakness is exposed by showing that he could not help. Nothing he did had any positive impact. He could not rally his base, and he could not sway independents. Considering those were his biggest strengths, his failures are the sign of a weak president. He could rebound, but that would require a serious change in policy and tactics. The message, initially, seems to be he will. Then again, he sold himself to the voters as a moderate, so honesty is not really his strong suit.

An objective analysis would show that both parties got a mixed bag last night.

Virginia: The GOP ticket swept all three offices, a big victory for them to be sure. However, this election followed a well established pattern. For NINE (9) consecutive elections, the Governorship has gone to the party OUT of power in the White House. Not since 1973, has the Governorship gone to the party in the White House.

McDonnell COMPLETELY avoided all mention of any social issues but ran almost exclusively on ‘jobs’. He did not use the word ‘Republican’ in any commercials or even on his website. Deeds was a lousy candidate and ran a lousy campaign including poor fundraising.

After nearly a decade of losing, the GOP for once didn’t blow it and their voters showed up. The Democrat turnout dropped significantly, uninspired and told repeatedly that Deeds had no chance, they simply stayed home.

Despite the drop in Democratic turnout, exit polls showed a majority did not see the election as a referendum on Obama, and Obama is viewed favorably by a majority of the voters.

New Jersey:
For the SIXTH consecutive election, the NJ Governorship was won by the party OUT of the White House. Just as in Virginia, only more so, the exit polls show Obama in majority approval and that the race was a referendum on Corzine, not Obama. Democrats did not vote in the same numbers as 2008.

Corzine actually closed a double digit gap after Obama started campaigning for him, but it wasn’t enough to overcome Corzine’s unpopularity.

NY-23: This seat came open only because Obama/Rahm thought they could take it. Obama appointed the sitting congressman to a position in his administration. They pulled it off, despite that fact that 60+% of the district has NEVER been represented by a Democrat in Congress, since the Republican party began in 1854. Even during the Depression and the LBJ landslide, the seat stayed GOP, until now.

The state races turned on campaign quality, candidate appeal and local issues. The House race turned on national issues and the the philisophical bent of the candidates. Hoffman was too far off the reservation for a moderate Republican district.

Obama got a wake up call to move back to the middle, and so did the GOP. Let’s see which one does.

The California seat was drawn to elect Democrats. Nothing new there.

The New York seat was a unique situation. It went with Barry last year, so the Repub “leadership” panicked, and picked a liberal R, thinking that’s what the district needed to win. The local Rs, along with some national Rs, rejected her, for the most part. The R chosen by local “leadership” had a hissy fit and threw her support to the Dem. In the end, the Dem won, but got less votes than the combined Rs. Had she gracefully bowed out, rather than have a hissy fit, the outcome may have been quite different. If the local “leadership” hadn’t panicked, and picked the wrong candidate for the district, the outcome may have been quite different. The outcome next November will be a correction, and the seat will go back to the Republicans.

As for the two big-ticket races, which were statewide races in states that went for Barry, and where Barry campaigned for the Dems, Barry lost. And by monster margins in Virginia.

Everyone, except Democrat apologists, does believe last night went poorly for Barry, including Barry. And the apologists likely believe it, too, but just want to put a wishful spin on the outcome.

I hope everyone really believes that last night went that poorly for the President, because underestimating him is just the thing he’d like for people like you to do.

Charlotte elected it’s first Democrat mayor in 22 years last night. Democrats also took a 8-3 majority on the city council.

I’m missing how Charlotte makes your case for ‘rejecting liberal social policies’.

And while Obama inherited much of it (remember September 2008? I do, it cost me the sale of a house I still own) that doesn’t matter to those who have lost or fear losing their jobs.

The party in the White House ALWAYS loses ground in the mid term elections. How much ground will depend on the state of the economy in, oh, about ten months.