So what to make of Republican Bob McDonnell’s very easy win over Democrat Creigh Deeds in Virginia or GOPer Chris Christie’s close upset in New Jersey over Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, who outspent Christie 3 to 1 and practically lived with President Obama the final week of the campaign? The White House wrote off Deeds a long time ago but Obama expended a lot of political capital in a failed effort to boost Corzine. Here’s a few observations:
1) Independents, who mostly supported Democrats in 2006 and 2008, are swinging back to the GOP. McDonnell scored 63 percent of the independent vote; Christie nabbed 58 percent. These numbers reflect independents’ concerns over the White House spending plans. There are dozens of Democrats in House districts that John McCain carried or Obama carried very narrowly in 2008. I can’t imagine these pols committing political suicide by supporting measures in 2010 that include a cap & trade energy bill or a Democratic-sponsored immigration reform bill. Frankly, I think chances to pass health care insurance reform have dipped. Certainly, the Pelosi bill will have to cede ground to the Baucus Senate bill.
2) Also, voters were turned off by pols who attacked his or her opponent or identified too closely with an overly emotional base. Examples: Deeds’ attempts to link McDonnell to the Pat Robertson wing of the religious right backfired. In New Jersey, Corzine was running pathetic ads making fun of Christie for his weight! Conversely, in New York’s U.S. House District 23, voters rejected GOP-backed Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, who had the enthusiastic support of national GOP figures such as Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson as well as many talk radio and cable TV news personalities. Hoffman’s popularity had deflated the campaign of a liberal Republican nominee, who withdrew from the race and later endorsed eventual winner Democrat Bill Owens. Enough upstate New York voters were clearly turned off by Hoffman’s support from outside conservative activists. It will be interesting to see if the GOP can regain the seat next year.
3) Last night told us that big money can be a big liability. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was supposed to win re-election easily after spending $100 million — what an obscene amount — but had to sweat it out before getting a narrow nod over city Comptroller Bill Thompson. What makes this so interesting is that the NYC Democratic party abandoned Thompson, who might have beat the independent Bloomberg with a little help. Add in big-spender Corzine’s loss in New Jersey and it seems that big-pocket candidates are turning off recession-weary voters who can think of better uses for $100 million.
4) Finally, while President Obama retains an average approval rating of slightly more than 50 percent, last night’s results clearly indicate that his popularity does not transfer to Democratic Party candidates. He has a year to change that. It will be an interesting 2010 campaign race that frankly, has already started.
Nicole
on Nov 4th, 2009
@ 3:59 pm:
I agree, although I do think Doug Hoffman was a longshot from the beginning. So if a longshot loses, does that really mean anything? The fact he came within 3-4 points given the complete chaos of the last few weeks is interesting. And I think it speaks to the power of the Tea Party movement.
I do believe that Rush Limbaugh did not help the “cause” going on Chris Wallace the weekend before the election and dumping on Obama for going to Dover. Of all the things to dump on him for, maybe Rush should have politely given him a few points for that. But then Rush has not made his living being polite.
But I think NY-23 says that liberal Republicans better beware. This wasn’t about social issues, but mainly spending. Republicans have been almost as bad as the Democrats in the last decade.
craig41
on Nov 4th, 2009
@ 5:00 pm:
deeds really didn’t run a campaign, all negative, no reason to vote for him, a democrat from rural virginia that loses in rural virginia, if moran had won the primary, who knows? but deeds only was in that race because moran and mcauliffe bloodied each other in the primary to the point where deeds was the cleanest one standing.
corzine, well, i was suprised when he won four years ago, that being said a month ago he had all the momentum, but he let christie back into the race. and not all negative campaigning is bad, but the weight comments were out of place (i would have stuck to the abuse of power while a u.s. attorney were i working on the corzine campaign, negative yes, but relevant).
owens, well, the tea party movement handed owens the seat. hoffman was running on national issues with national money and forced out the state party (some say rnc) picked republican candidate. i’ve heard some say that it’s a win for conservatives, but realistically, when has a move like this played out well for conservatives? club for growth et al has done more for democratic wins across the country than they have for conservatives. i guess the bottom line for me is a moderate republican is more conservative than a democrat any time, so why would you let the inner party struggle push a race to the other party?
all that considered i do understand why you’d want to keep a republican version of the blue dogs popping up, moderates can be frustrating to deal with.
Al
on Nov 4th, 2009
@ 5:27 pm:
This was indeed a tremendous loss for the democrats, who now possess two more congressional seats than they did yesterday, including (thanks to the fringe conservative right conducting a vigorous purge of moderates) one that they had not held since the 19th century. Woe, woe. How will they cope with such a sound repudiation of their principles?
Michael Trujillo
on Nov 4th, 2009
@ 6:07 pm:
So, it’s OK for outsiders to pass judgement on a candidate and declare her “not Republican” enough, even though that candidate seems to reflect the values and attitudes of the locals, and then throw support and money behind another candidate who doesn’t even live in the community? It’s OK that these outsiders do not have to live with the consequences of the election, and they get to walk away to meddle elsewhere?
Well, I certainly don’t expect any of you to complain the next time an outside group sticks its nose into Utah politics.
flatlander100
on Nov 4th, 2009
@ 6:56 pm:
Well, let’s see. The headlines in the SLT and NYT were about “Republicans Sweep.”
Sweep? Two races? A sweep? Two isn’t even enough of a sweep to win the world series. [I have a proposition for all pundits and headline writers. Henceforth, "sweep" shall not be applied to any string of election victories fewer than four." Has to be at least good enough to win the series to be called "a sweep."]
Amazing how newspaper pundits [and headline writers] can find the apocalypse in a sidebar.
Losses for the Dems in NJ and VA, disappointing absolutely. But let’s recall the winner in NJ was a middle of the road Christie-Whitman Republican — the very kind the Wing Nut leadership of the party denounces as RINOs and is trying to purge.
In NY, a House district that has been Republican since… since what, Reconstruction?.. went Democratic when the Republican candidate [of the Michelle Bachman/Rush Limpaw/Sara Palin wing] got in a brawl with a middle of the road Republican of the type that won in NJ. This is the race the pundits have been plugging as one “for the soul of the Republican party.” which soul’s seat is now a D in Congress. Thank you very much, Rush. Keep up the good work.
NJ is a swing state whose governorship flips with some regularity. So is, now, Virginia. The losses hurt my Democratic soul, of course, but losing two governorships in an off year election hardly justifies drinking chlorox.
If the economy is clearly on the rebound — and not just on Wall St. — and unemployment is below 8% and dropping by next Nov, the Ds will lose some seats [expected in off year election following a big swing in a presidential year], but will not suffer too badly. If the economy is not clearly recovering and unemployment is still around ten percent nationwide or worse, the Ds will take a big hit.
Baring some stunning development in foreign affairs or national security, it’s still true that “it’s the economy, stupid.” And some polling indicates it was the economy [or as the NYT put it, "economic concerns"] that played a big role in how independents voted in Va. and NJ.
Mark Shenefelt
on Nov 5th, 2009
@ 10:20 am:
Lots of good observations. I’ll add:
1) Corzine was corrupt. I suspect much of his loss was due to his own weight (haha) of baggage. People everywhere are tired of career politicians and are exerting their wrath. Give the Jersey voters some credit. Obama’s involvement probably didn’t mean much to them. And in 2012 I doubt any voters will be preoccupied with Obama’s support for Corzine. Presidents campaign for their allies in the states. SOP.
2) The Republican cannibalism in the NY 23rd district is the best thing to happen for Democrats since Obama was elected. It reminded me of rival Zerg armies turning upon one another (any StarCraft players reading this should appreciate the image). The fanatic right force commanders are racing to expunge moderates or “impure” GOP members. In New York, they trampled the GOP system, ignored the local party candidate nomination, and supported a take-my-ball-and-go-home Republican who then switched to run for the Conservative Party. Result: While feeding upon each other, the Democrat won. If they would have stuck with the GOP nominee, they at least would have had a congressional ally on some issues, including support of the National Rifle Association.
If they want to triumph in the long run, I think the Republican conservatives firebrands (Palin et al) need to work within the GOP structure, not steamroll it when they don’t like a local result. Or, they should leave the party and join the Conservative Party or whatever it is. If they persist with Zerg tactics, they’re doomed to stay a wild-eyed minority.
Al
on Nov 5th, 2009
@ 7:04 pm:
Mark wins the internets for bringing renegade Zerg armies into the conversation.