Do you honestly believe that the independents who, in two seperate state elections in two deifferent demograohics, economies, cultures etc. one a solid democratic bastion the other being touted as a new “purple” state (the color of your face I guess when the election results came int) who both voted 2:1 in favor fo the republican (and who voted for Obama a mere 12 months ago) do not indicate that at least at some level a rejection of the Obama agenda was partly in play here? Corzine actually outspent Chirstie by FOUR to one and Obama vistsed both states many times.

The dmes called VA a “bellweather” before the election and attached much signifcance to a Corzine victory (which they expected) as an affirmation of Obamamania…until they lost. (Christie’s margin in NJ was larger than Whitman’s back in 1993 even). Now suddenly Axelrod is out their spinning that these were insignificant results and Pelosi even trying to tout Tuesday as a victory?

What is it like to be such a prsioner of your desperate desires to cling to the world as you wish it were that you are blinded to the truth…and have the stubborness of the small-minded to go down swinging rather than accept things as they are (pedantic use of words and googled references to dead artists aside)?

As for hyperbole being a conservative trait? How about Bush=Hitler, Bush=World’s #1 Terrorist, Global Warming, AIDS will be #1 killer in America, 30 Million Uninsured (really?) etc.

I resort to ad hominum with you because you are so obviously a poster child for the insecure, faux intellectual who feels the need to parade limited acdemic credentials to give substance to empty points. You are so pathetic in your banality that you are unable to see in yourself.

……..Can’t you make any argument without throwing in 50% ad homs?….. Quoting Churchill in the context of a couple of governor’s races in an off year is a question of scale……..it’s a bit like comparing pavement artistry with Titian……not that one would expect you to appreciate such nuance……..I know conservatives have a weakness for this sort of hyperbole (eg. Obama is Hitler, Hussein was Hitler, containing terrorism is WW 3, etc etc) but it’s awfully silly.

Rarely do young people vote in large numbers, but they turned out in huge numbers to vote for Obama.

Black voters turn out in large numbers only when there’s a candidate running who is either black himself or panders to blacks. They turned out in huge numbers to vote for Obama.

But last night’s results suggest that these phenomena won’t be repeated for anyone else but Obama himself.

The election of 2008 was unique, because of the unique nature of the Dem presidential candidate. Don’t think that blacks and youth are going to turn out in huge numbers to vote for some middle-aged white Dem candidate in 2010.

You are basically saying you attach nor significance to two Republicans winning in: a) New Jersey–a state heavily democratic that had a governor outspend the challenger 2.5 to 1 or thereabouts; b) Virginia that, just one year ago, voted for a democratic presidential candidate for the first time in 44 years. Keep humming with your hands over your ears.

Of course the races were local. But what were the people in NJ especially rejecting? High taxes, out of control government and corruption…sounds like Obama’s admin. to me so far (certainly the first two and arguments can be made for the third). In VA McDonnell positioned himself solidly on (real) conservative ideals.

And seriously, what the hell is your problem with Schaeffer quoting Churchill? Are you so transparently desperate to show how “educated” you are that you need to criticize him using a wonderful play on words like Sir Winston was so adept at using? (Given the historical themes of much of Schaeffer’s articles, I am pretty sure that he too knows that quote was about El Alamein…and now we now that YOU know too. And wasn’t that really the point of your last line? You are so laughably sad my man. Sooo sad.)

You compare indies who broke for Obama in ‘08 with indies who broke for Christie yesterday. This is fallacy. You can compare independent numbers all you want, but the constituencies of people who vote in off-years are entirely different than those who vote in national years. To draw that conclusion is to ignore not only specifics of off-year elections, but the specifics of each race.

Tea-leaves (and wake up call) this is not.