January 20, 2010 11:00 AM
Last night’s election of Republican Scott Brown to the seat once held by Teddy Kennedy, the Senate’s “liberal lion,” came as a blow to Democrats in Massachusetts and beyond. Headlines from around the country will inevitably condemn the Democrats to a bloodbath this November, but it is important to take a second look at exactly what has happened.
To date, there have been 14 Republican retirements in the House of Representatives to the Democrat’s 11, and six Republican Senators to the Democrat’s four. But after last night, no doubt several more candidates on the verge may announce their departure. What we will find in this next cycle is a strong showing by challengers, much like Scott Brown, who appeal to a frustrated and disaffected public.
Perhaps the best indicators for the 2010-midterm elections are the 2009 off-year elections that took place in Virginia, New Jersey and NY-23 and the special election for Ted Kennedy’s seat that took place yesterday. On a surface level, we saw three states who voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2008 flip to red amid a struggling economy and a very public divergence between moderate and progressive Democrats on health care reform.
While it is common for the President’s party to lose congressional seats in the midterm elections, Brown’s election should be seen as a warning sign. Candidates like Robin Carnahan should take note of the race run by Martha Coakley, or they will face a similar fate.
While there is something to be said of the candidates Democrats selected for these races—a Goldman Sachs exec, a candidate with an identity crisis, and an out of touch vacationer—there is no overlooking the large swing of independents from Democrat to Republican candidates.
Many pundits have attributed the slow pace of health care reform to schisms in the Democratic Party, but the race in upstate New York showed us that the Tea Party crowd—which came onto the scene over the summer months—will demand far-right candidates be a part of primaries throughout the country.
“All elections are local” is a standard line in political science, but in a midterm election parties cannot escape national trends, and this year will be no exception. Republicans will attempt to make every race a referendum on Obama’s presidency, and at present, they make a good case. In 2008, the Democratic Party ran on a platform of health care reform, and as of early 2010, they have yet to deliver.
Lanny Davis wrote in The Wall Street Journal this morning, “It’s the substance, stupid!” He notes that Republicans have won the message on health care reform, and that Democrats need to meet Republicans in the middle to succeed. Democrats should do no such thing!
President Harry Truman once said, “Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time.” Obama and the Democrats should heed his words.
Even while Obama’s approval numbers have inched below the critical 50% threshold in a number of recent polls, portions of the proposed legislation including the public option, removal of pre-existing conditions, and some price control measures have been polling in the 50s and 60s.
Democrats have shown they have a difficult time governing. They need to pass this bill if they have any hope of surviving the 2010 midterm elections. After the bill is passed, the message will no longer center around the process, but rather the substance of the bill—exactly what Lanny Davis is arguing.
Scott Brown was able to win Democrats in Massachusetts not because Obama has overreached his authority, but because he has failed to deliver the “change” so many new voters came out to support. Democrats will stand by their principles, or they will fail.
Stephen Eisele was an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention last year, and works in Springfield, Missouri as a political consultant.
Democrats... need to pass this bill if they have any hope of surviving the 2010 midterm elections. After the bill is passed, the message will no longer center around the process, but rather the substance of the bill.
