The Morning After

While on Twitter last night, watching election results pour in for the 4 races that the media at large were hellbent on covering like Obama actually going to be threatened by them, it was quite interesting to attempt conversation with conservatives.

Regardless of what you said about Christie's win, Corzine's loss, or VA going right back where it was a few short years ago, you were guilty of perpetrating the most egregious spin imaginable.

But there's something that these conservatives aren't willing to recognize.

Living in one of Reddest states in all of the nation ( Kentucky ) I think I have a fairly good perspective on what went down in Virginia last night. While the elecorate in VA went for Obama last year, something that hasn't happened for a Democratic candidate since the 60s, it's not suprising that the state now has a Republican governor. It's a matter of history. Kentucky, at least in my lifetime, has never gone for a Democratic presidential candidate - save Bill Clinton in the 90s, yet we have a Democratic Governor for several years. You see the parallels now? Just because your state leadership shifts away from the previous presidential election results has absolutley no bearing on whom your state will vote for in 2012.

As far as Jersy is concerned, Christie had this one in the bag from the start, as Corzine's polling was floating between 29% and 30% for some time. The only reason that conservatives were focusing on this issue with drooling intensity was that Obama had taken such an active roll in trying to ensure Corzine remain governor of that state. It was a move that I wouldn't have made, and it does put Obama in a position to be roundly ridiculed by the Right - which they have done.

So what of th infamous NY-23 results?

while some conservatives are actually attempting to create Hoffman's loss in NY-23 as a victory for the tea-bagger set, it's actually just as embarassing ( if not more than ) Obama actively fighting for Corzine. From Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck to virtually every program on Fox"News" and all corners of the conservative blogging community, Hoffman was seen as some bright and shining figure that would vindicate the fringe conservative movement and prove that third party candidate can win.

This was most certainly not the case.

The reality of NY-23s results are largely seen by people that make strict party-line votes each and every time there is an election, regardless who is on the ticket. There are Republicans that would vote for Satan, should he be on the ballot, simply so they wouldn't have to vote for a Democrat. But was there something else in play last night in New York? Were people really voting for Hoffman, or were they voting because of his endorsements? Had he actually won, what do conservaties think they would have gotten that Michelle Bachman, Steve King, and Joe Wilson can't do - dispense nothing but white noise and say no to everything.

The true historical significance that has come out of NY-23 is that a Democrat holds a seat that was warmed by Republican ass for over 100 years. So all the money, all the coverage, all the hype largely for nothing.

A main talking point amongst conservatives and even some moderate Republicans was that these three elections were to be a referendum on Obama. And while exiting polling, which can be seen as a rather unreliable metric in most instances, show that Obama was hardly the deciding factor in how people voted, yesterdays off-year elections resulted just as history would have predicted they would have. The only difference, the only game-chaninging result, was that the tea-baggers lost - again.