I'm trying to figure out the logic behind the Dems' excitement over the Virginia election

Everytime I turned on NPR today, I heard almost breathlessly excited reporters say that, from the Democratic point of view, the incumbent Governor's victory in Virginia is a huge deal. Why? Because Virginia in both 2000 and 2004 went for Bush. Therefore, this election is seen as a slap at Bush. The reporters utterly fail to address the fact that Gov. Warner was first elected to the Governorship in 2002 -- two years before the great state of Virginia voted for Bush a second time. Perhaps the Virginians just like Democratic governors and Republican presidents. The same breathless reporters alos ignore the obvious advantage that always lies with the incumbent. So, while it may be a bit of an ego hit that the Republican candidate didn't take the governorship, I don't think there's very much to be read in these tea leaves. UPDATE: My point doesn't change, but Heather pointed out very tactfully that my facts were wrong:

Maybe I misundertood you, but current Gov. Warner is not the (direct) winner of the election. His protegé Tim Kaine is the winner (due in large part, I'm sure, to Warner's coattails). VA does not allow a governor to hold office for two consecutive terms, so Warner himself couldn't run again. At any rate, Warner has presidential ambitions, which I'm sure are only strengthened by Kaine's victory. You're right about VA having a split personality. We have voted Rep. for president, and Dem. for governor on more than one occasion.

Thanks, Heather. Serves me right for blogging in the midst of chaos (dinner on the stove, children and friends racing through house, attempts to maintain dog in isolation following medical treatment).