Not as much as some would like, and more than others would.

Squat. Governorships aren't part of the Federal. Like Congressional seats are.

A $50 Lesson in politics: I recently asked my friends' little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President of the United States some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?' She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.' Her parents beamed with pride. 'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But wait, you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where a homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use for food.' She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy just come over and do the yard work, and you can just pay him the $50?' I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.' . Her parents still are not speaking to me. *****************************************

It's just an early inicator, but it was expected by many, including me. +2

The governorships don't amount to anything more than influence outside of their states. The Representatives and Senators to the US Congress are in no way bound by the governor of the state they come from. What makes these elections important is that they were blue states a year ago. The majority of the voters in these states voted for Obama and now they're voting for a Republican. The number of Dem and Rep voters hasn't changed significantly in these states but what has changed is the swing voters. The swing voters are now being called independents in the MSM inferring a third party but this is very misleading. Political campaigns have always heated up as the election approaches in order to get the attention of that swing voter. These are people that identify with the Dems or Reps, calling themselves one or the other but vote their conscience in an election. (I'm a republican and I voted for Kinky Friedman instead of Rick Perry amd I'll probably do it again if he runs again) Republican(conservative) wins in these states indicate that those swing voters were looking for something from the new administration that has not materialized or what they perceive as having materialized is not to their liking. Politics is a little like baseball. Nobody can be real sure where the balls going to wind up but you can put your money on there being lots and lots of statistics. That's what this is, statistics. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/ While I'm at it the 23rd in New York is a totally different animal. Scozzafava was a Democrat running as a Republican and how she got the Republican endorsement is a complete mystery to everybody I've spoken with down here, anyway Douglas Hoffman ran as a Conservative Party Candidate (there is a conservative party in approximately 8-12 counties in New York) The Democrat, Bill Owens was the only "steady" candidate and should have lost in the predominately conservative district. Note the numbers, Owens-49% as a Democrat, Hoffman-45% as a Conservative and Scozzafava-6% as Republican. The final vote then 49% to the Democrat and 51% to the Republican/Conservative. This is consistent with the demographics of the district. Had Scozzafava withdrawn earlier so as to not split the vote Hoffman would have won.

If the gods are smiling upon us, it may mean that the electorate are beginning to see what a damned crooked, lying fool they elected a year ago. It may herald a return to sanity. But I'm not holding my breath. If ever, now is the ripest time for a new national party: the Conservative Party.