NY-23, however, is fascinating. The Republicans had their asses handed to them after the lunatic fringe of the party decided the official GOP candidate wasn't conservative enough, and threw their support behind a doomed third-party candidate — a man with palpably negative charisma, but one who would be devoted to the party line on abortion and gay rights.

I think this scenario is likely to be repeated in other districts around the country, unless the party leaders can figure out a way to co-opt the energy of the teabagger / Palinite activists without handing them the keys. I look forward to another year of right-wing infighting and hysteria.

Also consider his speech at Newark on Nov. 1. http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2009/11/preside...
You'll notice that particularly towards the middle and end of the speech, Obama focuses almost entirely on himself and his policies. Corzine is thrown in almost as an afterthought. All accusations of narcissism aside, this illustrates the degree to which Obama inserted himself into this race. In his attempts to drum up support for Corzine, he invoked his own policies and drew parallels between what he was trying to accomplish in Washington and what Corzine would do (and has done) in New Jersey. On the basis of the election returns, these policies and Obama's agenda were flatly rejected by the people of New Jersey. This was a significant blow to Obama and the Democrats in what should've been a slam dunk election for Corzine (who has previously won state-wide elections).

I'm sure that the fact the state's on the verge of bankruptcy, its people have the highest taxes in the country, and the fact that Corzine and his cronies are all crooks didn't help him much either. I'm focusing on the Obama-factor in the race. However, it's not as if New Jersey was some sort of conservative paradise before Corzine took office. The state's had these problems for a while, and Corzine has been elected under similar conditions before. The significantly different factor in this race was Obama.

I don't think you understand the English language. My point and my whole argument is that there is no evidence that Corzine's loss is due to "disillusionment" with Obama's policies. None. In fact, the only evidence that does exist (exit polls and polls in general) does not substantiate such a claim. Get it? I wasn't arguing that people don't vote for more than one reason — only that the premise was an opinion, not a fact and should be presented as such.

In fact, your assertion that I may not understand human nature can be spit right back at the author. Mr. Seelinger wrote that Corzine's loss "is evidence of a growing disillusionment with the Obama administration and its policies." Well, perhaps he doesn't understand human nature. Perhaps people voted for other reasons, like Corzine's own failures: corruption, property taxes, etc. So, following your own logic, Seelinger's assertion is at best conjecture. *sigh* You will cut off your nose to spite your face, Mr. Dent.

If it "doesn't reflect fully on Obama," how does it equate to disillusionment with his policies? That doesn't make a lick of sense, Mr. Dent. Semantics, semantics, semantics. That is a large leap in logic. You still didn't make an argument. What constitutes disillusionment? The tiny percentage of people that said that their vote was a vote against Obama?

Perhaps we could be rational and think of other reasons Corzine lost. Could you name a few that don't have to do with Obama? Could those be the reasons he lost? Look at the exit polls and polls in general before you jump to conclusions. They are the only objective data that you could actually use to levy an argument of disillusionment.