Has a very interesting post about the causes of the Democratic election defeats (and the Republican ones) in the 2009 elections.  I think he's basically right, although I'm not sure he goes far enough.

In particular, he says:

"But in New Jersey, there's literally almost no evidence that the Democrats' agenda had anything to do with Jon Corzine's defeat. Voters who cited a national issue were more likely to vote for Corzine, and voters who cited a local one, the Republican Chris Christie.

In Virginia, the evidence is certainly a little stronger, insofar as the national agenda may have affected the lopsided turnout (the electorate which turned out Tuesday had voted for John McCain by 8 points, a near-reversal of the actual results). Even there, however, the quarter of the electorate that cited health care as their main issue went for the Democrat Deeds 51-49. And in NY-23, which was supposed to have been the ultimate smackdown of the Democrats' agenda, the Republican Conservative candidate unexpectedly lost."

That isn't evidence that we don't know why independents went Republican or Democrat in these races.  It's strong evidence that national politics didn't have much of an effect on these races at all; that "all politics is local".

Even ostensibly "national issues" according to pundits and Silver, like "the economy" aren't really national to most voters.  Voters don't care what GDP growth is, they care whether their job is safe, their business is thriving, their neighbors are secure enough to keep their neighborhood decent.

To the extent that national politics affected these races at all, it has more to do with distrust of Democratic politicians due to the ongoing mendacity of the Obama Administration and corruption scandals (Corzine) than any policy in particular.  Health care is a 50-50 issue; it isn't going to swing elections.

Democrats don't need to change course on the national level so much as stop obsessing about it.

2009 Election Night was pretty dull, actually.  No real new information, I don't think.

In Virginia, Republican McDonnell clocked Creigh Deeds as expected, 59-41.  The margin has as much to do with Deeds' inability to campaign his way out of a paper bag than any national issues.  McDonnell voters were animated by concerns about taxes and the economy.

In New Jersey, cringe-inducing incumbent Jon Corzine lost to a big fat guy.  It's strange to see a Republican win statewide office, but Corzine was weighed down by corruption problems, which is never good in an off year election.

In NY-23, probably the most interesting race of the night, Democrat Bill Owens beat out Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.  This will be billed as a big tactical blunder by Republicans, but it really isn't a big deal.  Owens is arguably more conservative than the Republican Hoffman chased from the race, Dede Scozzafava, and this will be a competitive district in a year.  Hoffman's failure was his inability to grasp the local issues that drove the election, not his ideology.  The takeaway for Democrats is that Blue Dogs can be reelected if they pay attention to their constituents.  For Republicans, I suppose the message is that Sarah Palin isn't exactly the ideal endorsement in a moderate district.

In CA-10, John Garamendi sleepwalked into the House of Representatives.  No surprises.

A couple more gay marriage thingies were on the agenda in Maine and Washington.  As usual, they were tightly contested.  As usual, the results were mixed.  As usual, everyone claimed victory.  In Maine, the proponents of repealing gay marriage won 52-48, which is a win, but not, probably, the end of the story.  In Washington, the measure was to permit marriage, and it passed by an even narrower margin.  I'd be surprised if this stuff was even close ten years from now, the way the conversation has changed in the past ten.  Love 'em or hate 'em, the proponents of gay marriage are good students of rhetoric.

Mayor Bloomberg retains his office in New York, and the New York media thank him for his $100 million donation.

Overall, the results represent a reversal of the 2008 sweep, probably basically turnout based rather than representing any realignment.  The results in NJ and VA (and NY-23, really) suggest that Blue Dogs need to maintain their moderate credentials to keep their seats.  That, in turn, explains the decision to put off health care reform.  Probably a good move; health care reform is a fun issue for Democrats, and as long as its on the table, they don't have to deal with the unpopular parts of their agenda, like climate and card check.