[lasereye]

It would have been close to a miracle to win that race in a 2-1 Dem district that has had perpetual Dem's elected since forever. This doesn't provide any indications on the wave that's sweeping this country.

You and a bunch of others here missed the whole point of the article.

When there is a political wave the following happens: parties win special elections in normally difficult districts; they win with weak candidates; they win all the close elections. They just win, win, and win.

Burns was genuinely surprised to lose. He didn't write a concession speech beforehand.

[Reagan is King]

That quote wasn't the point of the article, you're quoting a comment from some unknown reader that was described by Jim Geraghty as being "on the ledge".

This was the point of the article:
Tim Burns’s task was complicated by the fact that he was running against a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat who ran against the health-care bill and the cap-and-trade legislation. The Burns campaign did everything they could to tie Critz to Democratic figures and laws that polled badly in the district — Pelosi, the health-care bill — and it appears that in the end, voters in the district weren’t buying it. But I am wondering about the Burns campaign’s get-out-the-vote operation at this hour.

There were lots of reasons Burns lost this race and IMO it's not a referendum on the Tea Party power. Critz ran as a conservative in a district with 100,000 union members and a 2-1 Dem ratio. I guess we'll have to wait for the real answer in November.