The Post's Chris Cillizza recently highlighted how Obama's softening approval numbers among white voters could mean big trouble Democrats nationwide:

Fast-forward to today. With the November midterm elections less than four months away, Obama's standing among white voters has sunk -- leading some party strategists to fret that the president's erosion -- and the party's -- could adversely affect Democrats' chances of holding on to their House and Senate majorities.

The Post formula was pretty simple: unpopular Obama = Democratic losses in November.

But are Congressional elections always referendums on the party in control of the White House, and do sitting presidents with soft approval numbers in various states automatically doom their party to defeat?

Those were certainly the assumption at play in the Post piece, which painted a very gloomy picture for Democrats. But the article, for instance, failed to make any reference to Pennsylvania Democrat Mark Critz who recently waltzed to a surprisingly easy special election win in May; a run-off called for to fill the seat vacated with the passing of John Murtha.

The RNC announced the seat was ripe for the picking. And guess what? Obama was highly unpopular in Critz's (very white) PA. district when the local Democrat handily defeated his GOP rival.

From Politico [emphasis added]:

The district itself couldn't have been more primed for a Republican victory. According to one recent poll, President Barack Obama's approval rating in the 12th was a dismal 35 percent, compared to 55 percent who disapproved. His health care plan was equally unpopular—just 30 percent of those polled supported it, while 58 percent were in opposition.

Will the Critz model be the exception or the rule come November? Who knows. But when looking into their electoral crystal ball, journalists ought to provide some context by acknowledging the very recent past.