You're living in a fantasy world. Corzine had just come off a scandal and was widely unpopular, was a Goldman Sachs wall street insider, and was an ineffective Governor. There are many Democratic blue states that have or had Republican Governors, including Hawaii, Deleware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, California, and Massachusettes among them. Those two recent elections were not a mandate on Obama or 2010. It does not show up in the polls that way. Most of the polls still say that the Democrats are ahead for 2010 by an average of 46.3% to the Republicans's 40%. The only poll not saying that out of 11 polls is the right leaning Rasmussen poll. Take Rasmussen out of the average and the Dems have better than an 8 point advantage for 2010.
http://www.pollster.com/polls...

And it's not only the New York's 23rd district special election. It was also the California's 10th district special election. The Republicans held that seat in '92 and '94 with 52% and 59.3% victories. I don't think you realize what happened in New York's 23rd district. Look at how the Democrats did there in a seat that's been held by Republicans since 1852, one of two of the longest held Republican Congressional seats in the country. The Dems percentage of votes per election in the last 15 years:
1996 - 26%
1998 - no Democrat ran
2000 - 18.6%
2002 - no Democrat ran
2004 - 29.3%
2006 - 36.9%
2008 - 34.7%
The average percentage of votes that a Democratic candidate recieved in five out of the last seven elections in New York's 23rd district - 29.1%
The 2009 special election, Democratic candidate recieved 49.2%.

Ignore what happened in New York's 23rd district special election last Tuesday, the elections in 2006 and 2008 and the current polls and you are in for a big surprise in 12 months.

Oh really??? Then why in the 2000 Presidential election was the Rasmussen poll the least accurate out of 11 different polling organizations where the average error rate was at 1.1%?
http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/20
"Rasmussen's Portrait of America poll was off by 4.5 percentage points on each of the top two candidates. Rasmussen had its interviews conducted by a computer playing a recorded voice with no live interviewer intervening."

Why is it that the Rasmussen poll was so far off from other polls in 2008 Senate races in so many states, like in Alaska, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, and other states? Other polls beat Rasmussen in every state listed here and others as well.
http://www.realclearpolitics....

When it came to Bush approval ratings, Rasmussen was always the highest out of more than a dozen polls. When it came to Obama's approval rating, Rasmussen was always the lowest out of more than a dozen polls. The reason why I said the Rasmussen poll leans right is because in the 2004 Bush reelection compaign, Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant. You can't name another professional polling organization whose owners were paid consultants in Presidential campaigns.

"The President aproval rating has fallen faster than any pres in recent history." So what. George Bush had a 88% approval rating on 10-21-01 and by 8-13-02 he had a 66% approval rating, a drop of 22 points in 10 months. By January 09 his approval rating had dropped to 26%, a drop of 62% during his two terms.
http://www.realclearpolitics....

What you seem to fail to grasp is several different factors.
1) In 2000, the Republicans gained the White House, and the Dems gained 1 seat in the House and 4 seats in the Senate.
2) In 2002, the Republicans gained 8 seats in the House and 2 seats in the Senate.
3) In 2004, the Republicans regained the White House, won 3 seats in the House and won 4 seats in the Senate.

Net gain for Republicans since 2000 was the White House for two terms, 10 seats in the House and 2 seats in the Senate.
4) In 2006, the Democrats won 31 seats in the House, and 6 seats in the Senate.
5) In 2008, the Democrats won the White House, and 21 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate.
6) In 2009, the Democrats kept one seat in the House and won another seat in the House.

Net gain for the Democrats since 2004, one term in the White House, 53 seats in the House, and 14 seats in the Senate. Net gain for the Dems since 2000 is 43 seats in the House and 12 seats in the Senate.

Now the Republicans are hoping to gain Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusettes that he has held since 1962, or for the last 45 years? Who are you trying to kid? Before Ted Kennedy, Democratic Senator Ben Smith was the Senator from Massachuesttes for two years. Before Ben Smith, John F Kennedy was the Democratic Senator from Massachusettes for 8 years. The Democrats have held that Senate seat for the last 55 years. Get a grip on reality.

Look at how misleading the first sentence of the article posted in this thread was.
"Two Gubernatorial victories, two congressional defeats, and Republican gains across the Nation, all lead up to the special United States Senate election in the deep blue state of Massachusetts...." Republican gains accross the nation? The two congressional defeats were for the Republicans. The Republicans have not had any gains in the House or Senate since 2004, and even then they only won 7 seats.