Of all the supposed lessons from Tuesday's mid-mid-term elections the best lesson may be that the Democrats won the national (congressional) elections and lost the state (governor) races.
Oh sure, there are other lessons, i.e. don't have a former Wall Street executive as your candidate for Governor as the public is still a wee bit upset about how the Bush administration let Wall Street go wild and nearly destroy the economy. A second lesson may be that if the President won your state less than a year ago you may not want to run away from him.
While those are the obvious lessons, the media has adopted the GOPHers talking point that the statehouse elections were a repudiation of President Obama and the national elections don't matter. But to accept that as accurate you have to believe the following, and that is no easy feat.
Basically the conservamedia says Democratic candidates lost the statehouse races because President Obama wasn't on the ballot and so a lot of Democrats weren't energized to vote. Okay so far, but here is the weird part - as a result of Obama not being on the ballot and fewer Democrats came out to vote then that means the lower turnout was a vote against Obama. What the f..?
So basically if Obama was on the ballot then more voters would have gone to the polls and Democrats might have won the statehouse races. Isn't that a confirmation of Obama?
And what about the races the Democrats won? Why all of a sudden are the not worth talking about? It only days ago "Fox News" was breathlessly running articles talking about how the California House election could go Republican. When it didn't, and then when the Democrats broke a more than 120 year lock the GOPHers had on the upper New York state congressional race, everyone went quiet, implying the races didn't mater.
Apparently races are only important if Republicans win, otherwise it's not worth noting.
