Creigh & Bob: The Flawed Couple?

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?

Public Option Still Alive? Mike Lux Says Yes, Nate Silver Says Probably Not

Let's hope that Mike Lux is correct, as he usually is, in this case about the "public option" being part of health care reform.

Kent Conrad has repeatedly said there are not enough votes in the Senate for a public option, and now says he won't vote for one. HHS Secretary Sebelius says the public insurance option is not essential. These statements add to a steadily growing conventional wisdom that the public option is now dead.

Not so fast. This fight hasn't even come close to being played out yet.

Let's also hope that Nate Silver is wrong, as he usually isn't, when he writes, "Is the public option really dead? Probably."