Perhaps it's my imagination, but there seems to be a lot of media discussion of how the results today in two governor's races and one rather bizarre House race serve somehow as a referendum on Barack Obama, the Democrats, their majority, the Democratic agenda and platform, the bank bailout, the stimulus package, "HOPE," your haircut, my haircut, the undefeated New Orleans Saints, and just about anything else that can be piled on.
OK, OK, I'm exaggerating for effect. But if the 2009 cycle is a referendum on either party, isn't more of a referendum on the Republicans? Or perhaps, more precisely, a referendum for Republicans about the meaning of Republicanism?
Yes, elections are typically--and rightly--a referendum on the policy performance of the in-power majority party. But during an election cycle, and particularly in the primaries leading up to the general, it is the out party that is working out its issues and kinks, trying on its new or reconfigured identity. This was certainly the storyline when liberal Democrats were backing people like Ned Lamont back in 2006.
That said, consider that the GOP nominees in the three highest-profile races today--Virginia's Bob McDonnell, New Jersey's Chris Christie and New York 23's Dede Scozzafava--represent three variations on the question of what ails the GOP and how to fix it. Moving from center-right to right, lets' take a look at each model:
No matter what, because of the Hoffman-Scozzfava dustup, Republicans will not win all three of these races. And if Christie loses, the GOP will go 1 for 3. That may be the most telling lesson of all in terms of how the party needs to re-build. Whatever the results tonight, it seems to me that 2009 is the year of the Republicans almost by definition because these contests represent a broader, intramural contest to define GOP's future strategy and identity.
I'm not saying the the Democratic nominees, the way they ran their campaigns, or state and national issues are or were meaningless. They're not, of course. And I'm not saying voters in these elections have no opinions about the president, or are not voicing those opinions through their votes. But 2009 is about the GOP.
11.03.2009
Isn't 2009 More About the GOP?
by Tom Schaller @ 3:36 PM...see also bob mcdonnell, chris christie, creigh deeds, jon corzine, obama, republican governors, resurgent republic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

41 comments
[as posted previously on the CA-10 thread]
hopefully, if any MSM or cable news outlets are really 'fair & balanced' they will FINALLY compare results between these 2 congressional elections.
the DEM will most likely HOLD in CA-10, and the GOP/CON will HOLD in NY-23...
now the analysts can parse the size of the margins & demos inside the voting data - but overall it will be a wash in DC.
actually, as Nate noted, not quite.
CA-10 will go MORE progressive/left
NY-23 will most likely go MORE conservative/right
Q - this proves ???
A - NOTHING in such a small sample
NJ & VA have little [if any] direct reflection on DC politics [they are local issues]
ME SSM referendum will be a reflection on the ability of the hard-line evangelical righ-wingers to continue to use HATE & fear to troll for votes for the GOP imho
You missed the CA-10 race in your write up guy.
Nte:
Sometimes and election is just an election. It isn't 'about' anything beyond the borders of the rather limited regions involved.
I don't think this extremely sparse and scattered set of in-the-main minor positions means anything at all - except that a few regions have positions that require filling today.
In the end, I think it is going to be close a wash - with everything ending up pretty much as was expected from the start.
Interesting analysis. And true in a way. Reminds me of 1993, and what evolved, which was 1994's "Contract with America"
I'd argue a mixture of 1 and 2 would occur.
As for 3, I have to consider a Hoffman win a GOP win. Scozzfaza really was a poor choice for the GOP in this district. Pro Choice, Pro gay marriage, Pro-Obama Stimulus, Pro-Obama health care, Pro-Union, Pro-Card Check.... Almost looks as if the GOP was running a Democrat.
If Hoffman wins, he'll caucus with the GOP, and may even change his registration.
Yeah, Tom, that’s it.
Today’s elections are about Republicans. (snort!)
It’s not about a state that went for Obama by 17.4% a year ago deciding to throw out their Obama lovin’ incumbent governor or another
state that went for Obama by 5-6% in 2008 electing a Republican governor by perhaps 8-12%.
Yep, nothing to see here. Nothing to do with the president! Move along!
1 and 3?
:::chuckle:::
From PPP:
GOP unity, support from independents key today
We think tonight will be very good for Republicans.
Two of the main reasons for that are superior party unity and pretty overwhelming support from independents.
In NY-23 despite the presence more or less of two Republican candidates on the ballot, Doug Hoffman is winning 71% of the GOP vote to Bill Owens' 67% of the Democratic vote. Hoffman leads Owens 52-30 with independents.
In New Jersey Chris Christie is getting 82% of the Republican vote while Jon Corzine is at 72% of the Democratic vote. Christie leads 52-29 with independents.
In Maine 77% of Republicans support the overturn of gay marriage while 71% of Democrats are opposed to it. Independents say they'll vote for it by a 52-46 margin.
In Virginia 94% of Republicans are for Bob McDonnell to 87% of Democrats for Creigh Deeds. McDonnell is up 63-33 with independents.
In Charlotte 89% of Republicans intend to vote for John Lassiter to 81% of Democrats for Anthony Foxx. Lassiter leads 51-40 with independents.
From the high levels of party unity it's clear that Republicans voters see the path back to power will require staying on the same page. And whether it's because the Democrats have bad candidates or they're unhappy with President Obama, independents are giving the GOP very high levels of support. It should be the best Republican election night since George W. Bush got reelected.
The reports coming out of both sides of the blogosphere are uniformly bad for the Dems across the board.
This could be a rout.
It's one thing to pour CfG money, national figures, and national attention into three races, as we see the Republicans do now.
It's quite another thing when you expect them to be able to do the same thing in hundreds of races across the country in 2010.
The party that should be concerned is the Democrats. Try to downplay the numbers but the fact is they have lost the independents.
Walker, did you read the earlier post ( http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/gubernatorial-races-poor-yardstick.html ) today? There IS nothing to see here, and there IS nothing to do with the president. This has been shown mathematically, your shrieking notwithstanding.
"The party that should be concerned is the Democrats. Try to downplay the numbers but the fact is they have lost the independents."
That's a fact? I'd say the jury is still out on that.
"Nothing to do with the president!"
This election, just like EVERY election and EVERY poll and EVERY piece of news that I encounter, from the rising stock market to the GDP, validates MY way of thinking, and I won't hear ANYONE say otherwise!
I wish everyone could admit that no matter how hard they wish their own theory is true, we don't really know, any more than we know how many Dagget voters would have voted for Christie or how many Scozzafava voters are voting for Owens. Our knowledge is far worse than through a glass, darkly.
The party that should be concerned is the Democrats. Try to downplay the numbers but the fact is they have lost the independents.
Depends what you're looking at. Pollster has Obama's job approval at 48.5% approve, 41.1% disapprove among independents. I'm not saying that Obama's approval rating is a direct reflection of how the Dems as a whole are doing with independents, but it's equally silly to claim that the Dems have "lost" independent voters. You need to take into account that independent voters (like any other group) are not homogeneous across the country. Independents in Maine are not the same as independents in Georgia, no matter how much Michael Steele wishes that were so.
I don't really agree. Yes, NY-23 is about the Republicans. If the party wasn't in the shape it is right now, the race would be boring. New Jersey however, is all about turnout and organization. A lack of democratic turnout would be a problem in 2010. CA-10 might serve as a true benchmark though. It's the Democrats' race to lose. And the margin of their victory (if they win), will be telling about the generic situation of the 2 big parties.
A Hoffman win is a win for the GOP, and don't kid yourself otherwise. (Unless you are willing to construe every Bernie Sanders victory as a blow to the Democratic party.)
The importance of these elections is that it proves the limits of the "GOP is a toxic brand" mere that is so popular around here. It's in some regards true, but that will not cover the Democrats as they abandon the supposed "moderate" ground they have staked out over the past few elections.
As for Independents, obviously these are a more conservative group than they usually are, hiding a lot of conservatives who don't want to associate with the Republicans. In a similar way, I've seen an analysis whereby in the Christie - Corzine race, any poll with Corzine leading had a higher number of undecideds than polls with Christie in the lead, suggesting (perhaps), some embarrassment at admitting GOP loyalties. This testifies to the low level of public support for the GOP, but also to the latent reserves that the party should be able to tap into without much difficulty.
As to this question of "moderates", as much as you folks pine for a good old GOP bonfire, I wouldn't hold my breath. Moderates are generally fine. Castle, Kirk, etc. - they aren't getting primaried. Scozzafava was, by any fair definition, flatly liberal (more liberal than Owens, actually) - a sort of Zell Miller figure. I wouldn't read that much into her ouster. Team playing moderates like Guliani and (I suspect) Christ will be fine. The more interesting question is how Dem moderates will fare if they help to kill Obamacare.
Sure Tom, and you're not a loyal Democrat.
The winners of these races will have won the independent vote. These elections are most definitely about the Democrats who won those votes only 12 months ago and are now losing them.
Try to keep your democrat biases out of your posts, otherwise you just look kind of silly
Great post. It's ridiculous the way the MSM is trying to make these races about Obama. It just doesn't make any sense. Your perspective makes much more sense.
I think NY-23 is a great thing for Democrats whether Hoffman wins or loses.
Bart DePalma said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Let's do the math, shall we.
The party of No! has a chance to beat (1) very, very, very unpopular Dem incumbent NJ governor and it's down to a chance because Christie blew a gigantic lead, having to run as a winger in a very Blue state.
So yea, Reps might defeat (1) high profile, Dem incumbent tonight. And I will be the first to offer my congratulations ;) for this ginormous achievement, if it should occur.
But after the 2008 election results, which put most wingers in the fetal position for a couple days ;) at least they may have a ray of hope to hang their hat on after tonight.
Keep hope alive!
p.s. liberals, don't like kicking a man when he's down, oh the humanity! Wingers getting a hard-on over tonight's results is somewhat amusing ...
Figured I'd give my spin now lol, since BPD, MPM, Walker etc. may be having massive orgasms later on.
btw, Obama is still president for another 3+ er 7+ years, regardless.
This is your political reality!
take care, blessings
In the end, you have 2 groups. The left is saying that this election is not a referendum on the president and the congress, while the right is saying it is.
I'm more going to argue that in a roundabout way its both.
To put it bluntly, people, in this economy, aren't going to vote to spite someone, unless they are really bloody petty. I won't put it past many on the right, but they would have done that anyway. Rather, they are voting for the person who they believe will best help their state, or district, or whatever. As such, perhaps this translates to more Republican votes, but I think that's a function of better races run by Republicans / Democrats being in the wrong place at the wrong time (would Deeds fair better if the economy was better at the end of Kaine's term? Same question for Corzine).
Furthermore, regardless of whether this is a referendum on Obama, or the congress, or the New Orleans Saints, it is all moot as of next week. A year is a lifetime in politics (did you even know who Obama was in Nov. of 07'? Well, one year later...) and that holds true here too. In 2010, they'll be all new data, all new problems, all new legislation, and all new solutions. The sentiments people have NOW will be exchanged with sentiments concerning the economy THEN, healthcare THEN, and everything else THEN.
So, I'll agree with Republicans that SOME of these elections can be viewed as a rebuke of the establishment (an indirect one though), but I'll disagree with them on the basis that by 2010 it'll all be bunk.
now THIS post over at Political Wire is interesting:
'Clinton vs. Bush'
"Believe it or not, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush will square off in a debate at Radio City Music Hall in February as part of a series pitting liberal and conservative thinkers, reports the New York Post.
The event -- billed as "The Hottest Ticket in Political History" -- will take place on Feb. 25, 2010, at 8 p.m., according to organizers."
=================================
a debate between Bill vs W ???
OK, where can I put my money down on Bill !!!
@gvwatchdog
"The winners of these races will have won the independent vote. These elections are most definitely about the Democrats who won those votes only 12 months ago and are now losing them."
You are making one key error, specifically that the independant vote today is more right leaning than at other points in history.
Look at party identification. Republicans are down around 25% (generously), while democrats have a pretty fair lead at around 35%. Overall, there is a party identification gap of around 10%+ between democrats and republicans. Thus, for any Republican to win races, they have to lure independants. However, we should assume that these independants come from nowhere. Republicans party identification has gone down while independants have risen and democrats rose but have leveled off. The overall shift is that Republicans lost people, Democrats gained the left leaning independants, and independants gained the moderate republicans.
As such, saying that Republicans won the independants is not really a big deal, since the majority of independants aren't so much independant as they are REINs (republicans EXCEPT in name). Far right conservatives, libertarians, and embarassed moderates are probably among this group.
Remember, independants aren't some blob of people in the middle of the spectrum. They are more or less anyone who doesn't want a party tag on them, and that means they're pretty much all over the spectrum.
@DCM of FL
"The Hottest Ticket in Political History"? I'd rather go see Hulk Hogan vs Jesse "The Body" Venture...yelling at each other. But then I'd also rather stay home and trim my nails, or see a couple Mexican wrestlers in a Jimmy Carter mask and a Ronald Reagan mask throw talc powder in each others eyes and hit each over the head with chairs.
You'd have to pay me some serious coin to show up to listen to W vs Bill yack at each other.
@Walker
"It’s not about a state that went for Obama by 17.4% a year ago deciding to throw out their Obama lovin’ incumbent governor..."
The Democrats are making Obama as public as possible in the campaign, and not Corzine. All this race proves is that the Democrats think Obama is more popular than Corzine. They're right. Which is meaningless, considering Corzine's popularity.
@DCM
"...Clinton...Bush...liberal and conservative thinkers..."
So no thinkers and one...doer...who is a centrist. I'm used to total failure when politicians promise but not of politicians promised!
So no thinkers and one...doer...who is a centrist.
Ouch. Rhodes Scholar doesn't mean what it used to, I guess.
The winners of these races will have won the independent vote.
I can't find exit polls for an off-off-year (no Congressional or Presidential elections), but I would imagine that in low turnout races such as they are, getting your base to turn out is far more important than getting independent voters, who are typically not going to show up at the polls in such great numbers as they do in Presidential years. The people who are voting today are a fundamentally different group of people from those voting last year.
Tom, normally I defend your posting, but seriously...no.
Speaking from the trenches of NJ, if Christie wins, it's not because of anything he did. It's because the people of NJ decided to choose 4 years of chlamydia over 4 more years of gonorrhea.
Hopefully, in 2013, we'll elect 4 years of herpes. =D
Virginia may be more of a bellwether, I'll admit - though Deeds was a rather uninspiring candidate. This is a state that has gone blue at the Presidential level like...twice since 1964. And one of those times was last year. And I believe it was pretty close.
I think that NY-23 already told us the story - the REAL AMERICANS decided to have Dede with tea and scones. (More accurately, Natty Lite and Doritos. Tea is for them durn Europeans, and what in tarnation is a scone?) It's a small-tent strategy, and the scary thing is...it may work.
Elections are about the candidates on the ballot.
Obama is not on the ballot last I looked.
Any right wing nut-job that says otherwise votes foolishly (well I guess that is true.) LMAO. They all voted for 'W'
I think the most interesting variable in the whole equation, and the one that's possibly going to make waves in 2010, is the Tea Party movement. And for the life of me, I can't yet figure out what REALLY motivates these people.
Are they really, truly, just fiscal conservatives who are enraged about taxes and deficits and socialism coming to America? Or are they simply wingnuts in fiscally conservative clothing?
Do they hate Barack Obama because he's a "socialist" or because they're jingoists and he's just a bit too much "other" for them to stomach?
Most important question... if the GOP produced a Goldwater type who was a true-blue fiscal conservative but a social libertarian, would he get the Tea Party vote?
I honestly don't know the answer. Would be interested in hearing the opinions of others who have a better read on this group.
NY-23 was a moderate to Conservative Republican held District since the pre Civil War. DeDe Scoffadava-would have continueed the Republican tradition of this district-had the far right teabaggers- fell in line and endorsed her instead of pushing her out of the race and supporting Rightwing Conservatie Doug Hoffman. The Democratic Nominee Bill Owens is a credible Democratic challenger in an open seat election. Had he ran in the 2006 or 2008 Democratic wave- McHugh's margin of victory would have narrowed.
VA Governors Race- The Republicans had a top tier candidate- Bob McDonell- the Current State Attorney General- who is George Allen without the Macaca. The Democrats nominated the most sucky candidate who is not popular with the Democratic base. McDonnell wins by a double digit margin.
NJ Governors Race- Corzine-D should have lost because of his unpopularity but will manage to survive in a 3 way race.
I see the idiot Tea-baggers are still trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill in NY23.
Here's the REALITY: Tomorrow's Headline: "Conservative Wins District That No Democrat Has Won Since 1982. News at 11:00!"
"To make the case that a Hoffman victory would be remarkable, teabaggers point to the Obama-McCain vote in the district, which tilted narrowly to Obama. (President Obama carried NY-23 by 5 points, compared to a 27-point margin in the state as a whole.) But the thing that teabaggers don't like to mention is that for at least the past three decades, Democrats have been unable to break the 38% mark in any election."
It's also interesting that McDonnell is ACTUALLY the biggest story of the night. How a candidate can win as a MODERATE Republican in a Red state that narrowly went for Obama in 2008.
MORE NEWS AT 11:00! So long as he does NOT run a "red meat" campaign designed to stir up the tea-baggers and also scare moderates, a Republican can win in a red state!
Clearly this means that Obama is dead meat three years from now in a race where he won't need even ONE red state to win.
Actually, as a liberal Democrat, if I lived in VA, I'm not sure I'd want Craig Deeds as my governor either. Just because he has a (D) next to his name doesn't mean he isn't totally useless!
This post is some more useful spinning.
The NY-23 issue cuts both ways.
If it spawns a host of third party candidates, the GOP have got a problem.
However, the fact that NY-23 happened makes third-party candidacies less likely because more economic conservatives will win in the primaries.
Remember, NY-23 did not have a primary at all. If it did, and Scozzafava had defeated Hoffman, there would not be a third candidate.
If you think Palin, Pawlenty and others are going to endorse candidates other than the GOP primary winner, you are quite insane.
This episode underscorres the need for the GOP to return to a fiscal conservative message that unites libertarian social moderates and social conservatives.
Reagan did it. That coalition is still there. Reagan did not engage in social conservatism as a centerpiece of his message, but he paid it due respect.
He was an economic conservative first and foremost.
With a base of 40% of the electorate to start with, a small-government, fiscal conservative message will romp in 2010.
Independents love the limited government message because they are leery of big institutions--like political parties in general.
These candidates will win. Tea party candidates are much better than culture warriors because they do not alienate independents. The message is primarily economic, not cultural.
This keeps independents and conservative Democrats in the fold.
With a base of 40% of the electorate to start with, a small-government, fiscal conservative message will romp in 2010.
You lost me at "With a base of 40%", which is a stretch--of course.
The Republican Brand these days is tarnished. That base in ~30-ish or less. To do well you need to move to the center to get the independent/moderates.
That is why Obama killed McCain. Obama took the middle from McCain. Also the fact that Bush left a ruined economy and a massive deficit helped a lot. LMAO
"fiscal conservative" is also a stupid notion. Is this fictitious conservation that has never existed previously going to veto spending Bills from Congress? LMAO. Congress has the power of the purse last I checked. Is the fiscal conservative going to paralyze government to prove a point -- that has never worked in the past.
What is the Republican message besides "No" then. I mean you need a message to get to 40% even, right? How is this different than 'W'? He was a big spender. They all are. If anything Republicans are liars about spending.
Hence the current and lasting problem with the Republican Brand.
My God Nate, how could you be so blind!!! This IS a referendum. Not so much on my haircut, but on yours.
But on a tad more serious note, aya know, maybe do something about it since you're on TV all the time. It's one thing during the break-neck presidential campaign, but you could use some pretty, homey.
Referendum!
The real questions are NOT 'is this a referendum' but
1. NY-23: will more voters vote Democratic this election than the past election? If yes, this is a repudiation of Conservatism, not a victory, even if the Dem candidate loses.
2. NJ: how does Corzine's poor popularity rating compare with other governors NOT up for reelection, such as Schwarzenegger? If his popularity drop is less or comparable to other govs of both parties, this is a referendum on 'change' not on Democrats.
3. VA: what % of votes went to the Repub Gov. this time compared to last time a Repub Gov. won? Is this higher or lower? If lower, we can't count this as a referendum on anything.
@filistro
Tea partiers are American exceptionalists, I think. To them, I'd wager, America has never done anything wrong, nor by definition CAN it do anything wrong (as long as the right people are in power, of course).
America is the greatest nation ever, they'll tell you, right before they tell you how much they love their country ... as if it is a sin to love a country that is imperfect but still a pretty decent place to live in many respects.
They gloss over some of the darker aspects of American history--slavery, for example, or the way that native Americans were treated throughout US history, as if there were something wrong with recognizing that in the past the US made some pretty big mistakes. Think of how many rightwingers could not admit that George Bush did some foolish stuff when he was in office, and how ridiculous they appeared when they'd try to justify the unjustifiable (or think of how some trolls here will do whatever they can to take an objective fact and always spin it so it makes rightwingers look good and liberals look bad).
They never bother to realize that perhaps the US has fared so well throughout history because it has been able to exploit its own resources to a greater degree than, say, European empires could, or that the US never had to rebuild after horrible wars, as many countries had to do in the 20th century. Tea partiers neglect the fact that the US has had peaceful borders with its neighbors for most of its existence, with a few small-scale exceptions.
All those things, and more, feed a typical tea partier's nationalist ego. I'd wager that their travels abroad have been minimal, and that they tend to live in towns that are mostly white, and that they don't find themselves in social settings in which they interact with folks who are not white Christians.
They have mostly lived their lives reading, eating, sleeping, dreaming 100 percent American, 100 percent of the time, and for whatever psychological reason, they simply have difficulty accepting the fact that the morals and views with which they grew up may not be perfect for everyone--hence, I think, the reason that they can both scream out "socialism!!1" when someone suggests health care reform, while at the same time they have no sense of hypocrisy when they cash their Social Security checks or make use of Medicare.
George Taylor:
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I'm sure you're right that Tea Party followers would pretty universally share a belief in American exceptionalism.
What I'm questioning, I guess, is the purity of their claim to be primarily concerned with fiscal conservatism and small government.
MPM says the Tea Partiers are not culture warriors and therefore do not alienate independents. I'm not sure this is true and in fact am pretty deeply skeptical. I suspect the truth is likely that cultural, social and religious issues are every bit as important to them as fiscal purity (and if push came to shove, probably more so.)
But I can't say that for sure because I don't know enough about the actual movement. Oddly enough, Tea Parties are not all that big out here in the West where I live. That's another thing that makes me suspicious about the movement, btw... since Westerners tend to be libertarian on social issues and passionate about fiscal/small govt. issues. You'd think they'd be big on Tea Parties, but they're not.
However, as I say, it's a topic I don't know much about, so I'm entirely open to enlightenment from others who know it from the inside.
GOP talking heads are making a big deal out of how Scozzafava was selected by 11 NY Republican bigwigs in toilet stall, or somewhere.
Anyway, anyone know how Hoffman was selected? Through the purity of a NY Conservative party primary in which a broad base of voters had a chance to make their voices heard... right? 'Cause otherwise these GOP talking heads would be hypocritical assholes. How could that be?
Post a Comment