A year ago, if you had told President Barack Obama that all he had to do in exchange for Sen. Arlen Specter's decisive votes on the stimulus, healthcare, and what he thought would by now be a done deal on cap-and-trade was one quick press conference to tepidly "endorse" Specter's return to the Democratic party--and then he could kick back and relax while a stronger, more Obama-esque Democrat with better general election prospects beat Specter in the primaries--don't you think Obama would've taken that deal?

Of course he would. And even though that's not quite how he planned it out (or did he?), that's what he got from Tuesday's elections.

No one wins campaigns these days having Obama barnstorm into their districts for last-minute campaign rallies (see Coakley, Martha)--"The president's coattails aren't what they used to be." But in the aftermath of this week's "Super" Tuesday election, the case that Obama was a net loser is still a little thin.

Yes, "his" candidate in the Pennsylvania Democratic senate primary, 30-year incumbent Specter, lost to two-term Congressman Joe Sestak. In the special election to fill the seat of the late Rep. John Murtha, Democrat Mark Critz beat Republican Tim Burns running against "Obamacare." And in Kentucky, self-proclaimed Tea Party candidate Dr. Rand Paul handily won the GOP senate primary.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder summed up the prevailing view of Tuesday's races that the White House "couldn't really claim credit for any victory" and "has yet to figure out how to operationalize the concept of an Obama Democrat." He's right that by now Obama should be a lot better at articulating who he is and whom he represents. But if the new rules are that there are no rules, and voters no longer fall in line with political parties, who says Obama gets hurt by election results that were predictable and, for him, fairly palatable?

Here's why Obama is probably more relaxed about Tuesday's results than people think:

Pennsylvania

Technically, the president held up his end of the bargain by "supporting" Specter, and now he's got an "Obamacrat"--a fiscally moderate, socially liberal, Afghanistan hawk--that he can support in the general election. Last year Sestak, a retired Admiral, was the loudest and clearest voice defending Obama's decision to swap land-based missile defense in Central Europe for a sea-based system to reel in the Russians on Iranian nukes:

If you're the president, Sestak is the guy you would have wanted on your team all along.