Over at FiveThirtyEight.com, Nate Silver weighs in on the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia:My general thoughts: these races have taken on something of a life of their own because of what are frankly a pretty flawed set of candidates. So I don't know how reliable of a barometer they'll really be as we look toward 2010. If Bob McDonnell loses the governor's race because of some uncouth things he said in a thesis in law school, when he might have won if he'd written something about -- I don't know -- the Holy Roman Empire instead, does that suddenly imply that the Democrats are in a much stronger position for 2010? I don't think so.I'd agree with Nate that any claims the Deeds-McDonnell race is a bellweather are ridiculous. How can you say "as Deeds goes so goes Obama" when Deeds is explicitly avoiding discussion of national issues?
As for Deeds and McDonnell as candidates? On the one hand, I don't think Virginia Democrats or Republicans would claim their candidate is flawless. But on the other hand, how many candidates are perfect?
Your thoughts?
