95k jobs a month in 2010, while much better than losing 700k/month, would be a an absolute disaster for the Dems.
Yes stopping the bleeding on job loss doesn't get you any political good will with the voters. 
95k jobs a month is still going to leave an increasing number of people out of work because the population is growing at more than 90k/month, and I say that as one how has agreed with Obama's economic approach. I personally however think job growth will be around 200k a month by November, but I was replying to Obama's prediction that only 90k a month is be generated. If 90k a month is the case, the Dems are going to be creamed come November.
Even if the economy starts to produce 300k jobs a month, the Dems are still going to lose a minimum 3-4 more Senate seats in November. But, if only 90k a month is created, then they're looking at a minimum of 7 seats.
You have to remember that Clinton defeated Bush41 in 1992 because people thought we were in a double-dip recession, and Clinton had good economic growth in 93 and 94 and the economy created 4 million jobs in 1994, but he still got his head handed to him because he overreached and loss independent voters...and Obama has made the electorate much more angry than Clinton did. 1994 was NOT an attempt to bring back the party of Bush41, rather it was the electorate taking out its vengeance on Clinton's and attempting to reign in his attempt of a government takeover of healthcare. So don't think the 2010 midterms are going to be a referendum on the party of Bush43, rather it will be a referendum on Obama. That's why Obama's visits to NJ, VA, and MA in the latest round of elections had no effect.
