Political professionals were looking at the primary and special elections held on Tuesday as the single most telling indicator of what the dynamics will be for the general elections in November. So now that the results are in, what conclusions can we draw?
Republicans were hoping that Tuesday’s elections would confirm their hope that a nationwide wave, similar to that in the 1994 elections, is building which would lead to landslide Republican victories in November and returning them control of the House of Representatives. Tuesday’s elections seriously undermined this narrative.
In the one race where a Republican directly faced a Democrat – the special election for the deceased John Murtha’s seat in PA-12 – Democrat Mark Critz, a former Murtha staffer, not only won, but defeated Republican Tim Burns by a decisive 8 point margin.
What’s more, this race was in precisely a district that Republicans should by all rights win. It is the only district in the country won by John Kerry in 2004 that was won by John McCain in 2008. As former Rep. and NRCC Chair Tom Davis (R-VA) said, “If you can’t win a seat that is trending Republican in a year like this, then where is the wave?”
The Republican strategy in this race was based on the assumption that a national tide is already building. Burns’ television ads painted Critz as another vote for the Democratic agenda and tried to associate him with Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. This approach is clearly part of a national strategy for the 2010 elections, and the fact that it failed so spectacularly begs the question of whether or not Republican strategists will go back to the drawing board to formulate a new approach.
It was clear before Tuesday that voters are angry and believe the country is on the wrong track. The open question was whether they are angry at the Democrats who control the government or if they are angry at all incumbent office holders. Tuesday’s results seem to bolster the argument that voters are angry at incumbents regardless of party. In three Senate primaries, the candidate portraying themselves as a outsider running against a political insider won – Joe Sestak against Senator Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Tea Party candidate Rand Paul against party favorite Trey Grayson in the Kentucky Republican primary and Lt. Gov. Bill Halter against Senator Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas Democratic primary (Halter did not actually win outright, but successfully held Lincoln to under 50%, forcing a run-off).
Further, polling in PA-12 shows that while voters are unhappy with Democrats, they are even unhappier with Republicans. According to First Read: “A key finding from the Public Policy Polling survey in Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district was that only 28% of voters thought Republicans did a good job running the country under President Bush while 63% think they did not. That -35 spread is 15 points worse than the -20 spread for President Obama’s approval in the district.”
Another discrepancy between this year and the 1994 Republican Revolution is the trend in special election victories. In 1994, Republicans won a series of special elections leading up to the general elections, previewing the coming rout. PA-12 is the latest in a string of Democratic victories in special elections for the House. Historically, Republicans have had higher turnout in special elections. The ability of Democrats to drive turnout in these contests may indicate that a widely hyped “enthusiasm gap” between Democratic and Republican voters may not be as big a factor as anticipated.
None of these factors necessarily mean that Democrats won’t face widespread losses in November. The mere fact that they hold so many more seats than Republicans practically guarantees they will lost seat. It is becoming clearer, however, that 2010 will not be 1994 redux.
