|
The best analysis of the outcome of yesterday's election comes from - of course - Nate Silver, who crunches the numbers on each of the results of the major issues and elections that politicos were following. Be sure to read the analysis, but in short, there's not much we can take away from these results.
In Maine, gay marriage lost out by a narrow margin; in Washington, gay rights look like they'll be affirmed in a strengthened domestic partnership law. Republicans won gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey - but lost a House race that was supposed to be a bellwether on the Obama presidency and Congressional Democrats.
Some folks are rushing to make sweeping conclusions from these races about national trends - Cillizza, for example, notes that independents flocked to the New Jersey and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidates, but ignores the fact that most of them still approve of, and like, president Obama. Essentially, as Silver demonstrates, most of the results seem to be based on local politics - that's as true for NY-23 as it is NJ-GOV or the outcome for gay marriage in Maine.
But I do think there are some things to look at in these elections. For one, Democratic turnout was low - although not a factor - in Virginia, for one. Also, voters (especially independents) are no longer voting against Republicans - which you could argue they were doing in the Democratic sweeps of 2006 and 2008. Those elections were, in part, a forceful rejection of Republican policies. But now Democrats comprise the incumbent majority in federal government; any ills or unhappiness the electorate experiences will work against them. Still, there's no sign any of yesterday's results was an indication that voters are opting either for the Republican brand, or against the Democratic brand.
Whatever. Even if healthcare reform had gone swimmingly, and we had something bold and real in Congress, I don't think the results would be any different. Maybe there would have been more Democratic turnout, but it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference. But I do think abandoning Democratic principles will pose a real danger to Democratic electoral chances in 2010.
That said, I do think DC-based Democratic strategists are going to look at these races, see scattering independents, and urge their candidates to again tack rightward. This may not affect healthcare reform - though I wouldn't be surprised to see another push to drop the public option, such as it is - but it may be enough to down cap-and-trade, where many of the most conservative Democrats are from coal and oil states. (See Max Baucus' recent statements on cap-and-trade.) That's par for the course for elected politicos, who prefer to act cautiously and minimize risks than to act boldly and fight to win and re-win their seats.
In short Congressional Democrats - as usual? - will do the exact opposite of what they should do.
One way to mitigate this probable rightward shift is threaten primaries in key districts....
|
