The defeat of the anti-union law in Ohio and the personhood law in Mississippi appears to have sent progressives into a tizzy. Harold Meyerson gives voice to the collective hope:
[Y]esterday’s elections were a rejection of a party that’s been defined for the past few months by Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, and Herman Cain. So can Democrats take some hope from last night’s results? Provisionally; sort of. If Barack Obama can make next year’s election a choice between his ineffectual moderation and the Republicans’ wacked-out lunacy, the Democrats should do well. If next year’s election is a referendum on his stewardship of the economy—and none of yesterday’s contests were anything close to that—the Democrats will likely get clobbered. It’s clear that Americans have had it with Republican extremism. Whether that will be a decisive issue in 2012 is not yet apparent.
The Economist's J.F., who thought personhood would pass, now believes the idea is a giant, counterproductive overreach for the pro-life movement. Chait's takeaway from Ohio:
The Ohio result actually reflects a failure of conservative activists to understand what motivates the electorate. The conservative movement holds an ideological and generally principled opposition to government. Most Republican voters don’t share that. They oppose government programs that seem to benefit people other than themselves.
John Hood, noting a number of election results that broke in the right's favor, wants the left to put away its champagne.
The Dish 