The elections yesterday showed that Democrats are in trouble everywhere. If they cannot win in one of the bluest states in the country with an incumbent, they will have trouble winning anywhere. In the big three races, two went for Republicans and one went for the Democrat. The win in Virginia for Republicans was particularly smashing as they won the top 3 spots. That is a political rarity in Virginia. In New Jersey, Jon Corzine should have won because the state is a sure victory for the Democrats every election. They have had Republican Governors from time to time, but they are rare. In the House race in New York, district 23, the Democrat narrowly won over the Conservative Party candidate. It is rare for a Democrat to hold this seat. The last one was in 1993.

What does all this mean? It means that as of November 4, 2009, people are upset with the Democrat agenda in Washington. Why do I say that? It is because of the amount of time that Barack Obama spent on the Governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey. He visited each one so many times that he is now eligible to vote in both states. (I am joking.) Both Governors’ races effectively became referendums on Barack Obama because of his extensive involvement. That both races ended up as losses for the White House does not look good for what they are doing to America. The White House will spin it as local issues causing the Democrats to lose both races. That is partially true as it is partially true in any race. But the fact remains, Obama spent a lot of time in each state campaigning for both of the losing Democrat candidates. That both lost in states he carried easily in 2008 is significant.

The House race in district 23 in New York is a horse of a different color. This district almost always has a Republican to represent it. Democrats are claiming that this is the first in 117 years. But the truth is that the last Democrat that represented the district was in 1993. What makes this different than the Governor’s races is the way the Republican Party handled the race. They held some meetings to decide on a candidate and chose one more liberal than the Democrat she was running against or those in Washington. The national Republican Party leaders lined up behind her as the Republican candidate, regardless of her positions on the issues. Sarah Palin and the more conservative Republicans said that they would not support the Republican. They would support the Conservative Party candidate. This caused a furor. Then, the financial support for the Republican candidate evaporated. She resigned from the race and endorsed the Democrat. The Conservative Party candidate was an unknown one month ago. The Democrat was well known one month ago. The Democrat was well funded throughout the campaign. The Conservative Party candidate only started to receive funding near the end of the campaign. To sum this all up, the Republicans shot themselves in the foot on this one. Had they put forward a viable candidate from the start, things would most likely have turned out differently.

These elections will have little impact on the number of Republicans or Democrats in the House or Senate. The Democrats still have enough votes to do just about anything they want to do. What these votes will do is cause those candidates in vulnerable districts or states to reconsider their positions on controversial issues. That could have major impacts on whether we are saddled with a loss of our freedom in the Obamacare package or the “Cap and Tax” plan. If the Democrat has any desire to serve one more term, he/she may decide that it is better not to support a dismantling of the best healthcare system in the world or a dismantling of the best economy in the world. Had these votes gone for the Democrats, we would have both of these bills passed and signed by Thanksgiving. Now we may not even get any discussion on these bills until after the New Year. That puts them in an election year where the issues will be even more volatile.

The Democrats are now in a box. Do they go on and pass the rest of their agenda right now or do they go slower on their agenda? To move quickly means they might get the bills passed, but at the cost of losing the House and Senate in 2010. If they go slow, they might not get the rest of their agenda passed at all. The answer to that question is how much of a dedicated Democrat are you? If you are a fanatic, you will push for everything now and worry about tomorrow when it comes. If you are more pragmatic, you will go slow and might be around to fight again, but without your agenda passed? The fight will begin today for the heart and soul of the Democrat Party. Who will win? Will it be the fanatics or the pragmatists? We shall know all in the next six months. Fasten your seatbelts folks; it is going to be a bumpy ride ahead.