Punditville is abuzz with the meaning of the 2009 election results, and there's a lot of activity about which to opine.Speaker Pelosi downplays the Virginia results, while Robert Gibbs dismisses the VA and NJ results as "local elections."
So here's a sampling of the opinion out there:
Michael Graham from National Review Online declares the election an illustration of why moderates can't be tossed aside.
UK Times Online claims the results of the governors' races were a referendum on the president and the economy.
Tammy Bruce remarks on the apparent lack of attention paid to the results by the White House, and also gives a nod to Michael P. Leahy's analysis of NY23, which he deems as chiefly campaign error.
My feeble thoughts (not that you asked, but I'm a giver that way):
Moderates are vitally important for a margin of victory, especially since not everyone is 'awake' yet; but if you haven't built up excitement, loyalty and trust in the base yet, nothing can save you.
The economy DOES matter. Conservatives who focus SOLELY on social issues will be arguing about gay marriage from their new home under the overpass one day. Everything else is riding on the situation, so show up in that arena first, and often.
Also, even if it were true that Obama inherited all the financial messes we've found ourselves in, boldly proclaiming that failed policies failed precisely because they weren't bold enough is, well, stupid. New Jersey and Virginia voters must not think we're headed in the right direction. But hey! The Obama documentary was on! So was V!
Lastly, grassroots candidates have got to pay attention to details. Experienced politicians will campaign against the grassroots candidates by decrying their inexperience. Before taking that step into the electoral arena, know your district, know your issues, and know your supporters. And listen to them, too. The tea party movement may have created a lot of new pesky armchair quarterbacks, but sometimes, they're right.