Last year, 23-year-old Rashida Hill watched the presidential debates, visited the college political party meetings and put a Barack Obama bumper sticker on her townhouse door. She voted for Obama because she felt like the election was about "being a part of something."

But on Tuesday, the Virginia Commonwealth University student didn't bother voting in the governor's race because, she said, the candidates didn't give her anything to get excited about.

"The simple fact is, unless you put it in front of somebody, they're really not going to seek it out," Hill said.

Young voters turned out in fewer numbers for Tuesday's elections in both Virginia and New Jersey than they did in 2008 for the presidential election. That's not really a surprise since off-year elections generally generate less excitement. Overall, more than 3 million voters who cast ballots in the 2008 presidential election failed to show up at the polls in either state.

The youth vote, the lack of it, is troubling. In Virginia voters under age 30 accounted for just 10 percent of the electorate on Tuesday, compared with 21 percent in 2008. It was even worse in New Jersey. Young adults ages 18 to 29 compromised only 8 percent of the total New Jersey voter turnout. In 2009, the youth vote comprised 17 percent of New Jersey's electorate.

The importance of getting the young to turn out cannot be overstated. In New Jersey, 66 percent of those under 30 voted for Governor Corzine. Just 25 percent voted for the Republican Chris Christie. In Virginia given an 11 point drop-off and the lack of excitement for the Democrat Creigh Deeds generally, the youth split nearly evenly with Deeds capturing 51 percent to McDonnell's 49 percent.

This is not to blame our poor performance yesterday on the young because there were other factors involved. In Virginia, 15 percent of African Americans turned out compared with 20 percent last year. The bigger factor was both drop-off in the number of independents and their swing to the GOP. Independents made up the smallest part of the electorate turnout in both states - contributing 29 percent of the total vote in Virginia and 28 percent in New Jersey. McDonnell received 62 percent of the independent vote, while Deeds managed only 37 percent. In the Garden State Christie took 58 percent of the independent vote, while Corzine received only 31 percent. This more than anything did Corzine in.

Still, I think this statistic is pretty telling. If the Electoral College vote had been determined by only those 29 or younger, Obama would have trounced McCain 475 to 63. Obama carried this demographic in states like Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, Kentucky, Tennessee, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota. Clearly, it pays off electorally speaking to engage the young and make them "part of something."

Not a huge surprise, but the Republicans' healthcare amendment would do literally nothing to decrease the percentage of Americans without coverage, per the CBO (.pdf):

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the amendment's insurance coverage provisions would increase deficits by $8 billion over the 2010-2019 period. [emphasis added]

I suppose the Republicans might try to argue that their proposal succeeds at stemming the growth in the uninsured, so to that extent at least their proposal doesn't do nothing. But it doesn't do much more than nothing.

According to polling from Bloomberg news, 61 percent of Americans believe it to be "critically important" to "[f]ind a way for those who are currently uninsured to get health insurance coverage," a goal just 8 percent believe to be not that important or a bad idea.

If the Republicans believe it to be good politics to line themselves up with the minority of Americans disfavoring efforts to decrease the proportion of uninsured in this country, then by golly they've struck gold. But if they were hoping to present some sort of alternative to the Democrats' efforts at healthcare reform, something that anyone -- whether Beltway pundits or voters around the nation -- could have taken at least somewhat seriously, they have more or less failed.

A lot didn't go well for the Democrats last night. But that doesn't mean that Democratic successes last night should be overlooked, as some like Michael Barone do.

The 2009 election results are certainly not going to make it easy for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to round up the needed 218 votes for Democrats' health care bills.

Wrong. In a race that Barone doesn't even mention in his "[l]essons from the 2009 election results," the Democrats won in a district a plurality of which had not been represented in Congress since 1850. (You think the race would have been omitted from his write up had it turned out the other way?)

In the simplest terms, the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district did exactly what Barone thinks last night's elections did not do -- get Nancy Pelosi closer to 218 votes in the House in favor of healthcare reform (by electing a pro-reform Democrat instead of an anti-reform Conservative to replace a Republican Congressman who was not a vocal supporter of reform). Bill Owens' victory in the race, along with the easy win by John Garimendi in the California 10 special election also held last night, give the Speaker two votes for reform she didn't have yesterday. Further, they showed Democrats on Capitol Hill that Democrats can win running in favor of reform in a climate dominated by discussion of healthcare.

The House will be voting on healthcare reform on Saturday, so we'll know soon enough who's right -- whether last night's results will inhibit Speaker Pelosi in her quest for 218 or not. I'd bet she gets to 218. And if Barone wants to take me up on that bet, I'm sure we could come up with some charitable purposes that could serve as the beneficiary of such a wager.

MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews had Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, on his show today. Here's what Matthews asked:

"It seem like this President has had to go to alot of fundraisers lately, he's played alot of golf lately, he's hung around with Geithner and Summers and the Paulson crowd, the whole New York rich guy scene.

He's beginning to look like a Clinton, he looks like a typical Democrats now, hanging out, playing golf, going to rich people's parties, bringing people into the White House to go bowling, this whole thing begins to smell like the Clinton era, what happened to the change we can believe in?"

But for the progressive left wing of the Democratic Party, our political system is effectively marked and dominated by two parties tied to corporate interests. Each party in their own way serves the interests of a narrow set of economic interests. There is little question that the interests served by the Democrats are broader than those served by the Republicans. As I've noted before, the former is the party of the top 10% and the latter the party of the top one-tenth of one percent. In numerical terms, that's a party of thirty million versus one of thirty thousand. No doubt, the differences in social issues is as deep as the Grand Canyon but on economic ones, not so much. But that's not the point really. The point is that they can be different because we are the party of people. That's what demos means. We have been this party since the Jacksonian Era.

I'm not the only one who has said this but there is a worry that Obama is just another Grover Cleveland, the lone Democrat to win election in the Gilded Age. My impression back in 2007 was that Obama was a centrist, a corporate Democrat. That hasn't changed even if I largely support the President's agenda because I hope it is but step one of a much larger re-orientation of our politics. I'm not worried about 2012; I expect President Obama to comfortably be re-elected barring an economic collapse. It's 2016 that's on my mind. This is about the long haul and need to remake the country to what it was when we shared a broad based prosperity even though it wasn't as inclusive as it should have been.

Oh this is too good to be true. A failed CEO wants to run for the United States Senate even as she admits that she has "not always been engaged in the electoral process." Translation: I don't vote. Way to go there Carly.

At any rate, Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of the Palo Alto-based computer giant Hewlett-Packard, joined the race for the seat currently held by Senator Barbara Boxer with an announcement in an opinion piece in the Orange County Register. She writes incredibly:

Admittedly, I have not always been engaged in the electoral process, and I should have been. For many years I felt disconnected from the decisions made in Washington and, to be honest, really didn't think my vote mattered because I didn't have a direct line of sight from my vote to a result.

Be honest there Carly perhaps you were just lazy or too tired after running a venerable company into the ground. It's unadulterated manure for you, a college-educated, corporate-trained master of the universe type, to suggest that you didn't think your vote didn't matter. You might note that David Packard, one of the founders of H-P, served in government during the Nixon Administration. Oh, but there's more:

Throughout my career I've brought people together, and I've solved problems. And that is what is needed in our government today. People who are willing to set aside ego and partisanship and instead work to develop solutions to our problems.

Oh Carly, you're such a gift from god. An ego is all you have, well that and undeserved millions at shareholder expense. Solved problems? I'm a Hewlett-Packard shareholder. I haven't forgotten what a mess you made. The stock was $52 dollars a share when you took over. When you were fired in 2005, it was $21 a share. You were given a $21 million severance package and named one of the Twenty Worst CEOs of all-time. Now, that's a distinction you truly earned. I'm also a former stock analyst. Let me rate you a "Sell and Dump."

In her announcement, Fiorina recites the usual litany of GOP complaints - the government taxes, spends and regulates too much. We have heard this since time began. Try something new.

She thinks that she is onto something when she suggests that we "put every government budget and every government bill on the Internet for every citizen to see." Carly, let me buy you a clue at the US House of Representatives or the Library of Congress' Thomas Service or perhaps the one for the body you aspire to join United States Senate. Seriously, you can't be this dumb or incurious, can you?

Until now, Senator Boxer's only announced opposition was another gift from god, California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. A military officer and businessman from Irvine in Orange County, he has been aggressively campaigning for months, positioning himself as the only true nutcase, excuse me, conservative in the race. And is in the NY-23 and down in Florida, the GOP appears headed for a nasty fight. It is failed failed money against a wingnut who once longingly wrote a book about a world war erupting in the Taiwan Straits. Today, uber-conseravative Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina endorsed the uber-nut DeVore. From The Hill:

"Chuck DeVore is a proven, tested conservative who is gaining momentum. He's the kind of leader who we can count on to stand up for common-sense conservative principles in the United States Senate," DeMint said on a conference call Tuesday evening. "If grassroots conservatives get behind him, he can win the primary in June and go on to defeat Barbara Boxer in November."

DeMint's political action committee, the Senate Conservatives Fund, has also endorsed fellow arch-conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). DeMint himself has endorsed Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), with whom he shares a media consultant, for an open Senate seat. DeMint also backed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York before enough pressure mounted to force the more liberal GOP nominee out of the race.

One of the most conservative members in the upper chamber, DeMint is also one of those least willing to compromise on Republican ideals. He offered a tepid endorsement of McCain in 2008 after his candidate, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R), dropped out of the presidential sweepstakes, and he has said he would rather have 30 pure conservatives in the Senate than a majority of centrists.

Help make Jim DeMint's wish of just 30 pure conservatives in the US Senate come true and help out Barbara Boxer.

It should also be noted that Senator John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told ABC News that the NRSC will not spend money in a contested primary. That may open the door for candidates like Rubio in Florida and DeVore in California. I'd expect the Club for Growth to raise funds on their behalf.

Gallup has produced a useful graph listing Presidential approval and midterm election results over the past 60 or so years that's worth taking a gander at.

The numbers that stand out to me the most are those of President Eisenhower. Unlike the other Presidents on the lists, whose parties' fortunes rose or fell with their approval ratings (with the exception of Gerald Ford, who was President for just a few short months before the 1974 midterms), Eisenhower sported fairly strong approval ratings going into both the 1954 and 1958 midterm elections -- elections in which his Republican Party 18 seats in the House (and control of the chamber) and 47 seats in the House (and relevance in the chamber), respectively. Eisenhower, in other words, had no coattails when he wasn't on the ballot. (His coattails while on the ballot were somewhat suspect as well; while he was able to lead his party to a meager majority during his landslide victory in the 1952 Presidential election, he was unable to do the same four years later despite winning reelection by more than 15 percentage points.)

We do not yet know what Barack Obama's approval numbers will look like in one year, and for now they are not nearly as good as those held by Eisenhower. But we do know what the President's approval rating was in three of last night's races.

• In New York City, more than three-in-four voters (77 percent) approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as President. There the Democrat lost by about 4 percentage points.
  
• In New Jersey, a strong majority of voters backed the President (to the tune of a 57 percent approval rating). There the Democrat also lost by about 4 percentage points.
  
• In Virginia, Barack Obama's approval rating was lower at 48 percent. There the Democrat lost by a much wider margin of about 17 percentage points.

In two of these races, Barack Obama remained highly popular, and yet the Democratic candidate was unable to win. In the third, the President was not so unpopular to serve as a significant drag on the Democratic nominee, and yet that nominee sank badly.

The onus for last night losses does not necessarily lie with Barack Obama. That said, even if the President is able to earn back support in the coming year leading up to the midterm elections, he will have to do something different if he hopes for such increased popularity to lead to victory in the ballot box. Because as it is now, Barack Obama's standing with the public isn't necessarily rubbing off on his Democratic allies -- allies, particularly in Congress, but also around the country in governor's mansions and state legislatures, who are key to the success of his agenda.

My guess is that Barack Obama doesn't want to be another Dwight D. Eisenhower -- a popular President, yes, but one who wasn't able to sustain a congressional majority and who thus had to deal with an opposition Congress for much of his term in office. His Democratic supporters certainly don't want that to be the case. So it's probably not a bad idea for the White House to be thinking about how to make 2010 (and beyond) turn out differently than did election day 2009.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver's campaign started running its second television commercial yesterday:

Like the commercial Culver ran last month, this ad emphasizes that the governor cut spending and his own salary in order to balance the state budget during this recession without raising taxes. I think the ad is well-crafted in terms of script and visuals, but like Bleeding Heartland users IowaVoter and dricey, I am concerned when Democrats rely heavily on Republican anti-tax messaging. Culver may be reinforcing conservative frames and limiting his future policy options if he does win re-election.

Des Moines Register political columnist Kathie Obradovich highlighted another potential problem not long ago:

Gov. Chet Culver vowed to balance the state budget without raising taxes. And yet a third or more of Iowa school districts might end up raising property taxes as a direct result of the cut to state school aid ordered by Culver.

Is the governor breaking his promise? Well, no. And yes.

When Culver talks about avoiding a tax increase, he really means income and sales taxes - the two major revenue streams for the state. He's referring to tax increases that he would have to sign into law. In that sense, he hasn't raised taxes.

But he acknowledges that property taxes are a concern. Culver says he'll ask the Legislature next year to require school districts to use their cash reserves before raising taxes.

Republicans are already blaming Democrats for the property tax increases many Iowans will experience next year. Their outrage is hypocritical, because the state cuts affecting education and local governments would have been far more severe if not for the federal stimulus bill, which included aid to state governments. Of course, Republicans denounced the stimulus package and bashed Culver for using these federal funds for their intended purpose: to help backfill the 2009 budget.

In any event, Democrats should be wary about staking next year's campaign on "we didn't raise your taxes during this recession." That won't be a comforting message to Iowans who have to pay a larger property tax bill in September 2010.

2006 Senate candidate Ned Lamont announced today that he's filing papers this afternoon for a possible run for governor in 2010. Excerpt from his e-mail blast and website announcement:

Since the 2006 campaign for Senate, I have continued to meet with citizens across our state -- as co-chairman of the Obama campaign in Connecticut, founder of a state policy institute at Central Connecticut State University, and as an oustpoken advocate for health care reform. I have been constantly reminded during these conversations that Connecticut is not living up to its potential and that too many of our families are still being left behind.

Whether it has been health care and the economy, losing jobs, young people leaving the state, or the never-ending budget crisis, we have all seen our state head in the wrong direction.

Simply put, Connecticut's current Chief Executive is not getting the job done.

Governor Jodi Rell's approval rating has come down quite a bit this year, but she's still at 57 percent approve/38 percent disapprove in the Pollster.com average. Then again, Lamont didn't shy away from a longshot campaign in 2006, so he may be ready for another challenge.

I'd like to hear from MyDD readers who are familiar with Connecticut politics. Could Lamont make a race of this? Would he be the strongest potential challenger against Rell? How would having him in the governor's race affect Senator Chris Dodd's re-election campaign?