Virginia -- a warning against complacency
Yes, he did, and that's undeniably good news. But he won by just 2.5%, a far smaller margin than the polls predicted. And that was against an opponent who is extremist even by current Republican standards (to say nothing of the nuttier-than-a-squirrel's-larder Lt. Gov. candidate) and was underfunded and the Libertarian Sarvis took 6.6% of the vote and Virginia is practically the epicenter of the War on Women and it was just three weeks since the shutdown / default hostage drama poisoned the Republican brand. Had the Republicans chosen a better nominee, or had Sarvis not been in the race, the outcome might well have been different.
In one way, the close margin helps us. The fact that Cuccinelli did better than the polls predicted enables the teabaggers to avoid the lessons they need to learn. They feel vindicated in denouncing polls as "skewed" (yes, a year after Romney's defeat they're back to that again) and in rejecting establishment Republican warnings that extremists are losers. They'll press on with the infighting, radicalism, and general craziness which are trashing the party as a whole. (As an aside, a primary in Alabama saw the first post-shutdown test of strength between teabaggerdom and the establishment; the establishment guy won, but only 52.5%-47.5%.)
But we can't count on races to go our way because Republicans will implode (though they will, here and there). Polls today are no guarantee of winning the House in 2014. We're fools if we think Wendy Davis isn't an underdog in Texas. We dare not even assume the Presidency is in the bag for 2016, though we clearly have the advantage there. Every election has to be fought as if we could lose, because we could. And FFS get those ACA website glitches fixed, yesterday. Pointing out that Medicare Part D had an equally rocky start is not going to cut it. The Bush administration is not an adequate standard of competence -- just as not every Republican we run against is going to be as out-there as Cuccinelli.