This is an interesting point, I was just reading about it. I'll buy that many governor's races might have been heavily about jobs, this Atlantic article makes a good case about that in 5 states. And that this would bring out the voters who were concerned about that, who wanted to vote for the guy or gal that would continue the good trend and against the one they thought might kill it.

Rather than that being about Obama or even Congress, I think most of those voters  with that as a priority would know it's about their state! And whether whoever is running their state is/was/continues doing what needs to be done in their opinion, to improve the situation.

And I also suspect a lot of these people might not think Dems as strong on that, but think of Dems as anti-business, and what people concerned about this topic want is big business and corporations and the jobs they bring being lured to their state.  (The Atlantic article doesn't do Wisconsin, but I suspect this whole thing might have been part of what happened there with Scott Walker being re-elected. It's a simple way of thinking where being corporate-friendly means being able to lure corporations and: Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! And Dems with their regulations and taxes and support of big gummint mean: less businesses, less jobs.) So voters with these concerns would be coming out to vote for governor and whichever party that governor was, any congressional candidates of the same party would benefit from a coat tail effect.

But I think none of that would have much to do with Obama. He wouldn't get credit nor would he get much blame.

In the end, actually, the whole thing might confirm the anti-Washington conservative narrative. Where Congress and Obama really are considered pretty worthless on this front.

I wonder about the most recent timing of the Federal Reserves ending of the fiscal stimulus? Claiming job growth had improved? 

Really? 

We will see how far the Democrats get with a tone that disrespects Obama. Black voters saw White voters reelect union-buster Walker, LePage, an indicted Representative from Staten Island, etc.There are all types of excuses being made for the decisions made at the polls, Blacks tire of being called Obamabots or worse. Go ahead and ignore the things that were accomplished despite Republican opposition, then come beg for our votes in 2016. Watch what happens 

Republicans have been attacking Black voting rights with only the President and Holder DOJ paying attention. If Allison Grimes is reluctant to admit that she voted for Obama, why should Blacks rush out to vote for her. Black voters are used to being under assault by Republicans. Nothing much will change with Republicans in charge of Congress. 

It was Obama and Holder, not Democrats in Congress protecting voting rights. When Democrats  try to sideline Obama in 2016, they will be sending a message to Black voters. Good luck to Democrats who want the Black vote. Whites voting for a crazed group of Republicans disappointed Black voters in 2016. If neither party takes our point of view seriously in 2016, we can stay home. Congressional Democrats did not focus on Blacks anyway during the GOP assault.

You want to see Democrats get elected in the next cycle?  Give the Republicans what they are asking for:

Take back insurance from the millions who have it for the first time; make it unaffordable for those who have ever had an injury or illness; throw graduates off their parent's policies (who cares if they don't have jobs/insurance options on their own.

Get rid of Medicare and put seniors out there competing on a yearly basis for shitty insurance coverage.

Get rid of Social Security (it could have the advantage of killing off the GOP voters)

Prohibit all birth control, sex education and abortion.

Start some new unfunded wars -- put John McCain in charge of picking who to fight with

....you get the idea.  Let the republicans be like the dog that finally caught the car.

What conclusion would you have drawn?

Anyone who has been following rmrds character assaults, questioning my perceptions or claims; here is but one source that relates the knowledge of events and perceptions back then.

I made the charge and strongly believe that the Black Caucus, wanting concessions, before; it would back the Clinton Healthcare reform and without the concessions led to the demise of the Healthcare compromise bill.

Imagine how many people were made to suffer because of a caucus’ selfish plan to extract concessions; putting their own self- interest first

The Black Caucus Has Clinton Running Scared ...

On July 26, he met with caucus members, who are steamed over his Haiti policy and his stance on a pending crime bill. Clinton had little choice. He desperately needs to mend relations with the 40-member caucus for upcoming votes on health-care and welfare reform. Says a top White House aide: "The President was concerned that this group know that they are valuable members of the team."

The constituency posing the biggest problem is the Congressional Black Caucus. It has stuck by Clinton's legislative programs even though members were upset that he dropped his urban jobs program and abandoned civil-rights-post nominee Lani Guinier in the face of conservative pressure. But the caucus is furious that Clinton has distanced himself from a provision in the crime bill that would allow racial data to be used to challenge the death penalty. "This is a question of principle," says Representative Albert R. Wynn (D-Md.)

The caucus may send Clinton a message by helping the GOP block a floor vote on the crime bill. It's also demanding that the Administration try to preserve minority congressional districts under assault in the courts. And it wants an extensive jobs program to accompany the proposed two-year limit on welfare benefits. But that could doom reform. "If they raise the ante, there could be no bill or a Republican bill," says a White House official.

Clinton health care plan of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free ...

In August 1994, Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell ... A few weeks later, Mitchell announced that his compromise plan was dead, and that  ...

• 5 Defeat

What conclusion would you have drawn?

But as I wrote I had other information at the time, to draw upon. It is difficult to find others source these many years after the fact.

 Is it bad form or wrong to state what I knew at the time?