Governors Matter, Not Elections.

If for a moment you're tempted to believe Michael Steele's spin that yesterday's gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey were referenda on the Obama administration, let me remind you of the Democratic victories in those same two states in 2001. Remember how the elections of Mark Warner and Jim McGreevey marked a rejection of George W. Bush and the Republican agenda, and the conservative power structure never recovered from the blow? Don't remember that? Me neither.

So, no, gubernatorial elections are never referenda on the president, Congress, or national parties. They are always their own thing, involving the circumstances of the state and the individual candidates. Political parties mean something different at the state level, and states that will not go Democratic in a national election in this century, like Wyoming and Oklahoma, nonetheless have popular Democratic governors, while Rhode Island and Connecticut, states Obama carried with more than 60 percent of the vote, are governed by Republicans.

It's governance, not elections, that will matter. If Republican governors like Chris Christie in New Jersey, Robert McDonnell in Virginia, or others elected in 2008 or earlier are seen as successful governors, that's the path back to power for Republicans. The Republican surge in the 1990s owed far more to big-state Republican governors who were perceived as successful than to the congressional majority. Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, John Engler in Michigan, George Voinovich in Ohio, Christine Todd Whitman in New Jersey, Tom Ridge in Pennsylvania and others implanted in those swing-state voters a sense that Republicans could be responsible stewards of government, cutting taxes without cutting services. ("Perceived" is the key word; there were often colossal gimmicks involved.) When voters looked at Bush in 2000, they quite reasonably saw him as cut from the same cloth, and very different from the deeply unpopular Republicans of Congress. Governors present a face of the party as solving problems, not stirring conflict around social issues or obstructing progress on health care.

I'm not too worried about Christie being perceived as a big success. New Jersey ran out of gimmicks a long time ago, and I think the Christie administration will dissolve quickly in scandal. (The "deferred prosecution" racket he created as a U.S. attorney should have been a major issue in the campaign: He gave a company a deal under which they wouldn't be prosecuted if they endowed a chair at his alma mater, Seton Hall! Is that so hard to explain?) But McDonnell takes office on a foundation of eight years of responsible government by Warner and Tim Kaine. The state has one of the most resilient economies in the country (thanks, big government!), and it won't take much for him to be seen as a good governor who can also cut some taxes. Such success could make McDonnell a presidential candidate someday, or more likely a challenger for one of the two Senate seats, and it will potentially restore Virginians' comfort with the Republican Party. Those are the only national consequences of yesterday's gubernatorial elections.

-- Mark Schmitt