I disagree. I think that both states involved local issues with a national backdrop. Neither Christie nor McDonnell said a nice thing about Obama. This was a warning -- without question -- from those in Virginia and New Jersey: we expect results.

Obama was elected with 55% of the vote. He hasn't done enough to satisfy people and our economy continues to struggle. Many are losing their jobs and more are feeling that they will lose their jobs. Things have to change.

We need to invest -- more -- in green jobs and/or in industries where some return will be generated. With ten percent unemployment, today if the election were held, I think that Democrats would struggle to retain their majorities in the House and Senate.

What was Corzine's approval ratings heading into the campaign? The vote was "Anybody But Corzine" heading into the election, however Christie was a flawed candidate, which made it closer than it should have been.

Deeds was a horrid candidate who won the primary by being the last man standing after McAuliffe and Moran took each other out. Now McDonnell would have likely beat any of the three, but it would have been closer. Virginia always elects a Governor opposite of the President.

As has been mentioned - both Christie and McDonnell didn't run on attacking Obama, however Hoffman's campaign was all about sending a message to Washington, and had all the Anti-Obama bigwigs emphatically endorsing him and what happened there? A Democrat was elected there for the first time in over a hundred years, and Hoffman bled 20% of the vote as McHugh got 65% exactly a year ago.

"I think that those who showed up had more faith in the Repugs. If, as others have suggested, low turnout did in the Dems (and I can buy that), then apparently the Dems have other problems in addition to being seen as ineffective."

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. I'm just noting that if you're going to make that assertion about "more faith," there's a concomitant assertion that can be made about the House wins.

Also, to clarify, I'm not dismissing these results. Certainly, there's something to be said for keeping the base motivated. That being said, however, one can't dismiss the impact that mediocre or poor candidates (which both in VA and NJ were -- one was very unpopular and the other was criticized for being unfocused) have on the electorate. If you don't motivate or appeal to voters, they don't get out to vote for you. In an effort to try to search too deeply for what these gubernatorial elections portend for 2010 or 2012, it's a mistake to minimize or ignore the quite prominent "dog-bites-man" aspect of these races that most sufficiently explains why these losses: These candidates did not move, neither figuratively nor literally, the voters of their respective states.

"I disagree with the premise that the issues were strictly local and that Obama has nothing to worry about (okay, I'm exaggerating that last bit). That notwithstanding, NY is not VA or NJ (even though some people think NY = NJ)."

I think it's fine to disagree with a premise. The problem here is that it's not a premise; it's a fact, at least according to the empirical data (i.e., polls) that was collected last night. When asked, voters stated that they were not engaging in a referendum on Obama. Indeed, his approval rating in each state was within ~1% of his 2008 winning percentage in each state.

Bottom line: The fact that Democrats gained an additional Congressional seat and won reelection in a competitive seat (CA-10) by a sound margin is arguably more indicative of the national political climate. And, as such, that climate still looks quite favorable for Democrats.

But spinning vis-a-vis the media is one thing (What else could Gibbs have said? Spinning is part of his job), actually taking the results seriously for 2010 and 2012 is another. So you are cool if their spinning is not reflective of their "head-in-the-sand optimism", but just... spinning from the PR department, right?

If so, I see your point.

For now, it seems fair to say VA and NJ were not directly about Obama himself (per the exits), at least not about his agenda. But people do need to see results soon -- results not as numbers but as actual everyday experience -- to be motivated to vote democratic in 2010 and 2012. So, yes, the brass should plan and act accordingly.

Stop talking to yourself. The neighbors will gossip.

FYI, I like President Obama. I supported him financially during the campaign and voted for him. I want him to succeed with his agenda more than anything else.

I just want him to get cracking on it.

No, he's not saying that, but your inability to keep your fragile of aura of troll cool when he mentioned the House pickups last night is pretty funny.

Well, I guess the same can be said for Palin, Pawlenty, Armey and the whole gang of wingnut clowns, right?

Honestly I'm not sure there's anything Obama can do to rush things through the Senate. He certainly could be more willing to use his bully-pulpit to talk up health care reform among the electorate, I'll grant you that.

He should let the majority rule -- not undercut his own program in the lame hope of getting one or two votes from the Republicans.

It takes two to tango: Obama promised what he could not deliver -- good behavior from the Republicans.

All the Republicans are interested in is helping Obama fail. If they were concerned about the welfare of Americans they would have at least presented their own health care plan several months back if they were serious about the ideas in it instead of simply hoping to slow the legislative process down.