A candidate knows he/she is in trouble when their own party begins spending more time explaining away their expected loss than helping them get elected.

The Democrats are doing exactly that with Creigh Deeds.

From the Washington Post:

Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.

Ah, well of course! This explains everything. If only Deeds had enlisted the guidance of the all-powerful Oz-bama. Foolish Deeds.

Also:

A loss for Deeds in Virginia -- which for the first time in decades supported the Democratic presidential candidate in last year's race -- would likely be interpreted as a sign that Obama's popularity is weakening in critical areas of the country. But Obama could be insulated from that narrative if Deeds were to blame, particularly in a state that has a three-decade pattern of backing candidates from the party out of power in the White House.

Although Deeds often praises the president on the campaign trail, he has distanced himself from Obama and Democratic policy priorities at times. At a debate in September, he declined the opportunity to label himself an "Obama Democrat."

Yep, serious blunder on Deeds part. I can't imagine why he'd distance himself from this: