Bad writing, bad research, and bad analysis made this an unusually bad analysis even for Dickenson.

First, if you think the results are bad for Obama, don't write that the results "were" bad. That doesn't even fly in freshman English. Someone who writes for a living ought to know better.

Second, Dickenson doesn't even report the most elementary facts in the story. Did you know that Corzine had a thirty percent approval rating before Obama was elected? Did you know that Virginia has elected a governor from the party opposite of the recently elected president for the past fifty years? Did you know that Obama's approval rating in both NJ and VA is almost identical to the vote he received when he won these states a year ago? Did you know that majorities in both states said that Obama had no influence on their votes last night?

Of course Dickenson couldn't be bothered with including any of this information in his "analysis." And why should he? Life is so much easier when you cut and paste GOP talking points and stick your name at the bottom. Why think when you can take dictation and slap the word "analysis" at the top?

"Bad writing, bad research, and bad analysis made this an unusually bad analysis even for Dickenson."

Oh, dear.