Excellent post, Jeff. Absolutely.

I also concur with the analysis by Ben Tribbet at FDL:

In Virginia this year, one poll showed the percentage of the likely electorate under the age of 30 falling 70% from 2008–and the African American share of the vote falling 39% from 2008! That’s why virtually every poll has shown today’s likely electorate as having voted for John McCain by double digits over Barack Obama in Virginia last year–despite Virginia having voted almost exactly the reverse. Unfortunately for us, the Deeds campaign freaked out and read these polls wrong over the summer. Instead of attempting to energize more young and minority voters to the polls to make the electorate more representative of Virginia–they began running a campaign targeted to the people already planning to vote. Creigh began bashing federal Democratic priorities like "Cap and Trade" and health care reform to appeal to the conservatives that were headed to the polls. And every time he did it, polls indicated turnout shriveled even further among Democrats and progressive voters–making the electorate even older, whiter, and more conservative. To which Creigh responded to by bashing federal Democrats more–which resulted in even more progressives becoming disengaged. Over and over, the cycle continued. Over the last six weeks, PPP polls indicated the share of the electorate that identified as Democrats declined from 38% to 31%. In other words almost one out of every five self-identified Democrats planning to vote on Labor Day has since then looked at Creigh Deeds and his conservative message, and decided they weren’t voting. Ouch!

And of course there are independents scattered throughout the D and Rs on that spectrum. Some people just don't want to be labeled or feel the parties aren't right on. 538 has a good post on this issue as well.

Great analysis, Jeff. And a fantastic graph. A couple of comments:

• Independents broke 2-1 for Republicans in both gubernatorial races. Though it is true that there is a significant growth of independent voters to the right of the GOP, that growth would still not fully explain the shift away from these Democratic candidates, given that 48 percent of independents went for Obama in Virginia in 2008, and more than 50 percent went for him in New Jersey.
• Independents broke for the Democratic candidate in NY-23.
• The results of these elections are not "nothing". Voters are seriously concerned about the economy, and unless things change for the better between now and 2010, incumbents on both sides are likely to experience some surprises.

One other comment:

I track shifts in voter registration for the Independent Party. In terms of people re-registering as Independent Party members, we get approximately 3 Republicans for every 2 Democrats. Since October of 2007, 5147 former Republicans joined the party, compared with 3432 Democrats.

Jason and Sal, you are right to press me for the numbers. There's no way to know exactly how these things map out. It's clear that there is a growing group on the GOP's right that, for lack of better designation, get called "independents."

Here's something more substantial:

While a major storyline coming out of Tuesday’s results has been that skittish moderates abandoned Obama and fled to the GOP out of concerns over rising deficits, there is little evidence in exit polls to support that. Of Obama voters who showed up in Virginia Tuesday, only 12% slid to Republican Bob McDonnell, according to exit polls. With John McCain’s 2008 voters defecting to Deeds at a 5% rate in the same surveys, the net trickle away from Obama is hardly enough to explain, or even substantially contribute to, McDonnell’s 59% to 41% trouncing of Democrat Creigh Deeds.

The numbers from NJ apparently didn't include the question about voting in 2008. I guess my analysis is that the biggest factors in both races were the candidates. Two races isn't enough of a sample size to begin to understand whether there's a change happening. (Though when you consider that there are two more Dems in Congress now than there were last week, it changes the picture.)

This would be a more accurate way to frame the above sentence. "I guess my analysis is that the biggest factors in both races were the candidates, not the voters."

Jeff - I think you've done a fantastic job of analyzing the constituencies that make up independent voters. My biggest takeaway is that voters are very concerned about the economy and they will support candidates who provide them with a credible gameplan for how to address it.

The biggest concerns for Democrats in 2010 will be turning out first time Obama voters, improving the economy, and addressing the budget deficit. For Republicans, it will be to find candidates who can work in coalition with the conservative movement without alienating general election voters.

Considering the fact that governor races rarely have a connection with national party issues the analysis of the pundits and reporters for the Washington Post and NY Times is breathtakingly stupid. The key element in both NJ and VA is that the Democratic candidates were flawed and chased away Democratic voters and Independents that lean toward Democrats. The voters did not make a connection between Obama and Deeds or Corzine. The voters that voted in VA this week also voted for McCain. They were not the ones that elected Obama.

There were four real lessons from this election obvious to anyone but the DC pundits.

1. Conservatives at the state level can win if they are pragmatic and talk about solving real local issues not Obama's birth certificate.
2. Incumbents that do a lousy job, are not good politicans, and turn people off (Corzine) lose elections.
3. Tea party wing nuts have trouble winning elections even in Republican districts.
4. If Democratic candidates do not motivate Democratic voters they don't show up.

As Steve Benen points out, Congressional Democrats gained two more members on Tuesday--which seems to slap back the meme that there is a GOP renaissance on the rise:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_11/020814.php

Benen: This doesn't seem especially complicated. Voters handed Democrats a huge majority, not to sit on their hands, but to deliver on their agenda. A year from now, lawmakers will have to tell their constituents something about how (and whether) they took advantage of the opportunity. Do any of these vulnerable incumbents seriously think they're better off with a depressed, unmotivated base and a short list of legislative accomplishments? Dems fared well in 2008 when young, minority, urban, and suburban Democrats and independents turned out in droves. Does the party think they'll thrive if these folks stay home?

The party should take "yes" for an answer.

Jeff, i concur with the hearty congrats. i would label the center group "swing indies" however.

what happened Tuesday shows the importance of GOTV: Dems generally do worse in low turnout. that's one reason that they are doing so well in Oregon: we get high turnouts consistently with vote-by-mail. it appears to be a reason Owens won in NY23: the SEIU & unions got Dems to the polls. those people in the middle are going to bounce back-and-forth forever until they decide to have a mind of their own, to get informed about the issues, to take responsibility for government beyond voting superficially and almost arbitrarily (not that i have an opinion of those people....) those who have a strong GOTV will get those votes, because many of those votes go to the last group to talk to them. it's sad & stupid, but it's a fact (such as facts are).

Jeff, great post. Loved the graph.

I agree with John Calhoun on all four lessons learned and with Sal Peralta's comment that "Voters are seriously concerned about the economy, and unless things change for the better between now and 2010, incumbents on both sides are likely to experience some surprises."

I don't think the economy is going to improve much by the 2010 elections, so trouble ahead for incumbents. We need another stimulus, which we probably cannot get enacted.

Throwing out incumbents may become a theme for some time. We as a nation have been living beyond our means, and not sharing the benefits very equally. That's ending. After we get out of the recession, reducing our budget deficits will be a top priority. The public is not ready for some of the hard economic choices ahead. Neither left nor right, Democrats nor Republicans, IMHO, wants to approach the American public with what's necessary: cutting programs, increasing taxes, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan (because we can't afford either), and raising the price of gas and other carbon products. What we need to do is not popular. We're politically stuck. Our interest group politics do not help. I see some period of instability (as we keeping turning incumbents out because reality does not improve) until we find our way out.

And, of course, voters are much more nuanced than a one dimensional, left to right spread. Plus parties are coalitions, and one can always be unhappy with partners in a coalition (as I am with some in the Democratic coalition).

ou’re just whistling past the graveyard if you don’t recognize this as a direct repudiation of the overreaching by Dems in Congress and a demonstrative lack of clout by BHO, particularly in the NJ race. Barrack made 5 visits there trying to bolster Corzine’s chances and accomplished squat.

And the fact that the Republicans lost TWO House seats, bringing health care reform closer to reality? That's just the GOP having an off House night?

Barrack made 5 visits there trying to bolster Corzine’s chances and accomplished squat.

That's a data-free bit of analysis. What leads you to believe this? Corzine's approval was 38% at the time of the election and he drew 45% of the vote. I could just as easily assert (consulting, like you, no data), that it looks like Obama was worth seven points. Which would be a hell of a lot of juice. Please show your work.

The votes did confirm that younger voters have a very low attention span and commitment to the political process.

Really? Show me where they confirm that.