A whole lot of work combined with a whole lot of angst added up to the perfect storm. The Obama people down here and Susan Mariner were the key. McCain won Virginia Beach but local Republicans were willing to demonstrate disillusionment in subordinate races. The bloom will be off the rose by the next cycle.

one thing though that is likely to have a positive impact going forward is the 18-29 voter cohort -- Obama won that group by over a two to one margin.  In four years, four more years worth of young voters will enter the rolls in addition to the group that came into play this year.  

The biggest challenge for Dems will be keeping new voters active including in off-year elections.  

As far as the next presidential cycle goes, as you state, Obama will need to hold up his end of the bargain and provide effective governance.  Based on the state's demographics he has the potential to put Virginia in his column before the votes are even cast in 2012.

It's also good for Dems that Webb's re-election -- if he decides to run -- comes during the next presidential cycle.  He's the most vulnerable of the Dems who've won statewide office.  But Obama's presence on the ballot should provide Webb with some insurance if he decides to run again.

Great commentary Teddy. What an inspiring time to be a Democrat in Virginia.  These results show what a great job all of our county chairs did in Northern VA.  We were pleased to not only welcome Scott Surovell, but also Arlington Chair Peter Rousellot, Obama Fairfax Director Luke McGowan, Senator George Barker (for his work in Prince William), Ingrid Morroy and so many others today at our meeting.  Arlington itself provided a shot of blue adrenaline of a 50K vote cushion and our entire region provided a jolt of a few hundred thousand. Great momentum to help us in next November's election (and one in which redistricting will be on the line.)
More info about the Business Council at www.nvdembiz.org

from Mr. Brodnitz' analysis, in my opinion, was the grassroots. I believe that Webb's win, the statewide expansion of a Democratic presence, Obama's win, and the increase in local Democratic office-holders would never has happened without the basic, stubborn work of individual activists... I mean, grimly determined and angry activists, sometimes in direct confrontation with old guard Democratic establishments, especially in the beginning (like the Webb campaign). The grassroots organized themselves by themselves, did the grunt labor, often without any help from the organized party at the beginning, but with the encouragement and sponsorship of the blogs like RaisingKaine.

While Brodnitz gave us the professional view, it occurs to me that it will probably be the grassroots that continues to organize itself to encourage the longterm interest of the new voters and the newly interested voters who responded to Obama. That is where we will find the way to hang on to these new people: helping Obama to deliver on his promises. He has already hinted that he'll call on us in the future, so we should be ready.

Teddy,
Excellent diary and insightful analysis by Brodnitz.  Let me use this comment to make the points that I intended to post in response to Rep. John Boehner's op-ed in today's Washington Post, but decided not to add to the nearly 1,000 'are you dreaming, you nut case!' other comments.

President-elect Obama was elected with a huge mandate and, yes, he and the 111th Congress will most certainly pursue a very progressive agenda.  The people have spoken and the Democratic majority has every right to expect that they have the mandate to do so.

However, Obama owes his election and mandate not to Democrats, not to disillusioned Republicans, and not to special voting blocks:  not African-Americans, not Latinos, not the young first-time voters, and not labor interests.  His election turned on the votes of the largest, but completely unorganized, political party in our country--independent moderates.  Even with the solidarity of all of those other constituencies, Obama would have lost without the overwhelming support of independent moderates.  Don't take my word for it, you can look it up.  For example, first-time voters under the age of 30 voted no more Democratic either numerically or as a percentage of their vote than in previous recent presidential elections.  (Source:  Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director, citing Gallup.)  

We have been called Reagan Democrats, Rockefeller Republicans, and by numerous other misleading labels.  In truth, we hold the balance of power in every national election and we feel free to vote for any candidate regardless of political affiliations.

Boehner and his party won the votes of the independent moderates for several elections.  We gave them control of Congress after the failure of the first two years of the Clinton administration, with its HillaryCare, Somolia mission-creep, the 'don't-ask-don't-tell' policy, and numerous other debacles.  We gave them two Bush administrations.  Now, we have handed them their heads and given both control of Congress and the White House to the Democrats.

Independent moderates are the most self-interested voting block in the country.  We will always vote our own best interest first, regardless of political philosophy.  Sometimes this can even devolve into voting for the lesser of two evils, as we perceive it.  We have no loyalty other than to ourselves and how we perceive the greater good of the country.  (i.e.  what is good for me is good for the country.)

In my personal opinion, the single reason that Mark Warner enjoyed such a huge success in this election was not the fact that the Virginia Republicans were so dogmatically pure that they had to nominate an unelectable candidate.  It was because Warner understands the power of the independent moderates.

This is my message to the victorious Democrats of a new, blue Virginia:  tread lightly and don't forget who brought you to the dance.

what you call "independent moderates" (which is pretty much what I considered myself for 10 years after devolving from being staunch Republican) basically voted anti-Bush III? I prefer to think that many of them voted  pro-a progressive view of the role of government and how we Americans are all in this together.  That is, for WITT (we're in this together) because they'd tried YOYO (you're on your own) and it didn't work. Underlying this shift in the approach to government is a rejection of the jungle economics of pure free market Friedmanism and a hope for new rules of engagement across the board: economic, political, social. And I do not mean "socialism."

That's the genius of independent moderates.  Some of them voted for the lesser of two evils and some of them voted for change.  The net result was an overwhelming support for Obama and the down-ticket Democrats.

BTW, if you want to quantify the difference between the 'lesser of two evils' and 'change' voters, examine the precincts where Obama's winning margin was not enjoyed by the down-ticket Democrats.

and I hope you (or someone) will do such analyses down on the local level. It will be helpful in figuring out how to keep these new Democratic voters on the reservation. So to speak.

since you say the difference between "lesser of 2 evils" and "change" voters is the difference between Obama and downticket Democrats, does that mean you consider these moderate independent voters you like so much to be, basically, Republican? That is, other circumstances being equal, they would automatically vote Republican? I'm not so sure...

Independent moderates are not affiliated with any party, Democratic or Republican.  They consider political parties to be dangerous obstructions to pure democracy; organizations that can coerce voters to support candidates simply because of a party label.  And, since political parties have more leeway than individual candidates in fund-raising and campaign spending, then they are more susceptible to corrupt special interests.

The 'lesser of two evils' voters were those who distrusted Obama's 'liberal' agenda but who were disgusted by the prospect of a Bush III.   So, they voted for Obama but did not vote Democratic down-ticket.  The 'change' voters were the ones who bought into the Obama message and wanted to throw out all Republicans.

I have been studing this exit poll and this does not appear to be the case in Virginia.  According to the poll, independents broke evenly between Obama and mccain. republicans and Democrats broke heavily for their respective candidates.  However, 6% more folks identified themselves as Democrats then republicans which gave Obama the winning margin.

Party Identification
Category   Obama McCain % Total

Democrat     92     8       39
Republican    8    92       33
Independent  49    48       27

Allowing for political philosophy the story is different

Category    Obama McCain % Total

Liberal       90     9      21
Moderate      58    41      46
Conservative  18    80      33

As a swingvoter I find this poll irritating but still here it is. You may have a different poll though.    

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25...  

Almost 50% of the voters self-identified as Moderate.  Within that group, Obama had a 17-point lead.  Ipso facto, the independent moderates carried Virginia for Obama.

Thanks for playing, "swingvoter."

:)

If he gets offered a Cabinet post, he should take it.

His failure in the VTech massacre was revisited today in the Richmond Times Dispatch.  Many of the effected families are from NOVA and they are not happy with the non-answers they have gotten.

His failure to solve NOVa and Norfolk's transportation nightmare also hurt his popularity in NOVA which caused his poll numbers in NOVA to fall all spring and summer and may have cost him the Vice Presidency.

If Kaine ran for Senate to fill a supposed Webb vacancy, I have doubts, he'd carry NOVA.  

Power's coal-fired plant. That decision upset environmentalists and a lot of other people, and he never gave us a straight explanation of what compelled him to make the decision he made. Maybe Deeds or Moran should go for the Senate seat?? If, of course, it comes up.