“Ruh Roh,” Barry
According to the White House, U.S. President Barack Obama went to bed a happy man Tuesday night …
After all, Obama’s aides insist he wasn’t watching election returns, but was instead enjoying the Chicago Bulls’ thrilling 83-81 come-from-behind victory over the Milwaukee Bucks.
In fact, according to CNN, yesterday’s stunning reversal of the Democratic Party’s political fortunes didn’t even warrant the attention of the President’s senior staff, who decided against holding a traditional West Wing “watch party” to view the results.
Assuming Obama and his aides did flip the channel to any of the networks covering the returns, though, they saw nothing but carnage where only a year ago their numbers were boldly advancing.
In New Jersey, for example, a state which Obama carried in 2008 by a 15% margin (and campaigned in heavily over the last few days), Republican Chris Christie knocked off incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine in a huge upset, 49%-44%.
That’s a twenty point swing – in just one year.
Meanwhile in the Commonwealth of Virginia, which Obama carried by six percentage points a year ago (and also campaigned in this year), Republican Bob McDonnell thoroughly trounced Democrat Creigh Deeds by a 58%-41% margin – leading a GOP sweep.
That’s a twenty-five point swing – again, in just one year.
But to view the electoral results of November 3, 2009 through an excessively partisan a lens would be a mistake. After all, on a wacky night of political upheaval, a Conservative Party challenger in Upstate New York (of all places) nearly knocked off a Democrat who was endorsed by the “GOP” nominee (of all people).
The “Republican” in that race was reduced to the role of the spoiler, basically handing the Democrats their lone high-profile win.
New Jersey was clearly the big surprise of the night, though, as the GOP represents only one-in-five registered voters in the Garden State and yet still managed to pull off the upset.
How’d that happen?
Well, exit polls showed that Christie – a former U.S. Attorney – beat out Corzine among independent voters by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio, 58% to 31%. By comparison, a year ago Obama carried New Jersey independents over John McCain by a 51% to 47% margin.
In Virginia, exit polls showed McDonnell winning independent voters by an even wider 65% to 34% margin. By contrast, a year ago Obama won 48% of independents in the Commonwealth.
Those quantum shifts spell huge trouble for Obama and his Democratic allies – a sign that the growing non-partisan portion of the nation is not only retreating from its previous support of his administration’s policies, but actively embracing politicians who espouse contrary views.
Speaking of those views, both Christie and McDonnell smartly tailored their respective messages to appeal to fiscally conservative voters – choosing not to focus on more divisive social issues. If Republicans are smart, that represents their quickest path out of the political wilderness – of course the GOP figured that out in 1994 only to completely forget it as soon as the elections were over.
And since then, Republicans have shown little appetite for fiscal conservatism beyond their campaign rhetoric.
So what happens next?
We’ll have to wait and see …
While there’s no way to spin that Obama is exclusively to blame for Tuesday’s dramatic reversal of his party’s fortunes, there’s no way to spin that his policies haven’t caused a huge chuck of that shift away from the Democratic party.
Oh well, at least the Bulls won, right?
Loading ...
Comments
By Ynot on November 4th, 2009 at 6:51 am
We the People are unhappy and that explains it all don’tcha think?
By McFailure on November 4th, 2009 at 7:56 am
We have big government types in Barrett and McMaster running for the Republican nod in SC. Just because repubs win means nothing.
By countryboy on November 4th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Going to be a lot of people turned out of Governors mansions and the Congress over the next three years. I believe people are sick of letting people stay in office year after year, or decade after decade and doing nothing or worse, doing the opposite of what the electorate wants. I know I am. No more automatic votes for me, like I have given John Spratt for nearly 3 decades, while he has become a Pelosi liberal.
By Attorney on November 4th, 2009 at 8:46 am
hello ,obama is great person i like this person We the People are unhappy and that explains it all don’tcha think?
By Yorkie on November 4th, 2009 at 9:09 am
“Our” GOP spent $900,000 …$900,000…. on the Scazzofava lady…only to have her drop out of the race and endorse the Dem.
Michael Steele: WHAT IN GOD’S NAME ARE YOU DOING UP THERE?
By Soft Sigh From Hell on November 4th, 2009 at 9:45 am
When a Democrat is elected governor in a red-red state, say like SC (Reilly, Hodges, possibly the next one), does that mean a fundamental state shift in political outlook? Not at all. It means that state issues are viewed differently from national ones. The congressional races are a bit more indicative naturally.
By Darkseid616 on November 4th, 2009 at 10:41 am
SSFH,sorry to burst your politcal analysis but Richard Riley was Governor when SC was still a democrat dominated state. Hodges was elected more by the $24million spent by the video poker lobby against Beasley than on his own merits. As far as your analysis of congressional races being more naturally indicative,prior to the 1990 census you might have had a point but since SC had to drawn a district for Clyburn,that no longer is the case. The DOJ has pretty much insured that SC will have 4-2 split in the Congressional delegation regardless of what the voters want.
A better application of your analysis can be found in Mayoral elections in cities like Atlanta,Charlotte or in voter referendums in Maine where the voters rejected traditional politics or liberal social policies. America has always had a moderately conservative lean in the past with the occassional flirtation with liberal ideas that were soon rescinded when those ideas were shown to be bad ideas.
Does this mean doom and gloom for the democrats? November 2010 is a year away and in politics that can be a life time,but if you want to consider a football analogy;last night was a scrimmage game and the democrats looked more like the Detriot Lions and the republicans more like the New Orleans Saints…
By Crooner on November 4th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
It’s the economy, stupid.
And while Obama inherited much of it (remember September 2008? I do, it cost me the sale of a house I still own) that doesn’t matter to those who have lost or fear losing their jobs.
The party in the White House ALWAYS loses ground in the mid term elections. How much ground will depend on the state of the economy in, oh, about ten months.
By vicupstate on November 4th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Darkseid616,
Charlotte elected it’s first Democrat mayor in 22 years last night. Democrats also took a 8-3 majority on the city council.
I’m missing how Charlotte makes your case for ‘rejecting liberal social policies’.
By OnNoNotAgain on November 4th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
It is a blow to the Democratic Party sure.
But it’s not an indicator. I had to check, and the Virginia Governor’s seat was open.
How can that result be the result of voter dissatisfaction.
By Bobby on November 4th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
There is a reason you are a South Carolina political blogger and not a national voice. State races in Virginia and New Jersey didn’t go well for the Democrats last night. The only two races with any national significance were in the California 10th and New York 23rd. What happened there, FITS? I think Democrats retained the 10th and picked up the 23rd for the first time since the Civil War…in a nice repudiation of the people who have hijacked the Republican Party.
I hope everyone really believes that last night went that poorly for the President, because underestimating him is just the thing he’d like for people like you to do.
By larry on November 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
vicupstate,
Charlotte, like Asheville, is becoming a liberal mecca. I, for one, am not suprised by the Democratic victory in urban Charlotte.
By sid on November 4th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Bobby,
The two congressional races were local races. Yes, they were for federal seats, but they each represented a small electorate, especially when compared to two statewide races.
The California seat was drawn to elect Democrats. Nothing new there.
The New York seat was a unique situation. It went with Barry last year, so the Repub “leadership” panicked, and picked a liberal R, thinking that’s what the district needed to win. The local Rs, along with some national Rs, rejected her, for the most part. The R chosen by local “leadership” had a hissy fit and threw her support to the Dem. In the end, the Dem won, but got less votes than the combined Rs. Had she gracefully bowed out, rather than have a hissy fit, the outcome may have been quite different. If the local “leadership” hadn’t panicked, and picked the wrong candidate for the district, the outcome may have been quite different. The outcome next November will be a correction, and the seat will go back to the Republicans.
As for the two big-ticket races, which were statewide races in states that went for Barry, and where Barry campaigned for the Dems, Barry lost. And by monster margins in Virginia.
Everyone, except Democrat apologists, does believe last night went poorly for Barry, including Barry. And the apologists likely believe it, too, but just want to put a wishful spin on the outcome.
By vicupstate on November 4th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Sid,
An objective analysis would show that both parties got a mixed bag last night.
Virginia: The GOP ticket swept all three offices, a big victory for them to be sure. However, this election followed a well established pattern. For NINE (9) consecutive elections, the Governorship has gone to the party OUT of power in the White House. Not since 1973, has the Governorship gone to the party in the White House.
McDonnell COMPLETELY avoided all mention of any social issues but ran almost exclusively on ‘jobs’. He did not use the word ‘Republican’ in any commercials or even on his website. Deeds was a lousy candidate and ran a lousy campaign including poor fundraising.
After nearly a decade of losing, the GOP for once didn’t blow it and their voters showed up. The Democrat turnout dropped significantly, uninspired and told repeatedly that Deeds had no chance, they simply stayed home.
Despite the drop in Democratic turnout, exit polls showed a majority did not see the election as a referendum on Obama, and Obama is viewed favorably by a majority of the voters.
New Jersey:
For the SIXTH consecutive election, the NJ Governorship was won by the party OUT of the White House. Just as in Virginia, only more so, the exit polls show Obama in majority approval and that the race was a referendum on Corzine, not Obama. Democrats did not vote in the same numbers as 2008.
Corzine actually closed a double digit gap after Obama started campaigning for him, but it wasn’t enough to overcome Corzine’s unpopularity.
NY-23: This seat came open only because Obama/Rahm thought they could take it. Obama appointed the sitting congressman to a position in his administration. They pulled it off, despite that fact that 60+% of the district has NEVER been represented by a Democrat in Congress, since the Republican party began in 1854. Even during the Depression and the LBJ landslide, the seat stayed GOP, until now.
The state races turned on campaign quality, candidate appeal and local issues. The House race turned on national issues and the the philisophical bent of the candidates. Hoffman was too far off the reservation for a moderate Republican district.
Obama got a wake up call to move back to the middle, and so did the GOP. Let’s see which one does.
By No Way! on November 4th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Trust me! A lot more Democrats are going home in the next election!
By sid on November 5th, 2009 at 10:18 am
vic,
I don’t agree with your analysis, but I can certainly be as objective as any one human being.
Virginia: A pattern is just a pattern, and has nothing to do with the outcome of any particular election. The pattern you mention, however, is not followed every cycle across the whole ticket. Nor do overwhelming landslides fit neatly into the pattern.
And while Deeds may have been a lousy candidate, this was the same guy who lost a squeaker to McDonnell four years ago. What changed? Well, one thing that changed is Barry is in the WH, and Barry was campaigning for Deeds. That was not all that caused the landslide, but it had more to do with it than your pattern theory.
But you seem to be blaming the media, too, when you say Dems were told Deeds can’t win. That’s just wrong. And you’re wrong about Barry’s popularity in VA. He’s below 50%. People blamed the economy, and Barry is, rightly or wrongly, considered to be in charge of the direction it goes. Whether or not people say it is a referendum is not nearly as important as if it is perceived as one. Many see it as such.
As for exit polls, I, personally, believe many folks are not comfortable with saying they oppose Barry, so the exit polls may not be all that accurate. Some people either fear being labeled a racist, or fear they may actually be one because so many keep claiming opposition to Barry is racist. It eases their mind to say they like Barry, but support those who work to oppose him.
New Jersey: Again with your patterns. It’s a wonder they even bother to hold the elections. We could save money simply by determining results based on patterns, the stock market, SB winners, and Redskins’ home games.
You seem to keep falling back on Dems not showing up, and that supports my position. Barry pushed hard for Dems to support these candidates, but folks didn’t listen to him. Yes, the quality of the candidates has an impact on that, but so does Barry’s dropping popularity. You keep talking about majority approval (although you are incorrect for VA), but neglect to mention how far his numbers have fallen. The only reasin he’s above 50%, on average, is because of his inflated numbers in the beginning, when everyone wanted to give him a chance. Don’t worry, he’ll be below 50% by February, at the latest (although he’s already dipped there and come back up).
NY-23: See my previous analysis. It’s far more accurate, and far more objective.
I’m not saying, nor have I ever said, that Barry was the only reason the statewide races went red. I just get tired of Barry apologists who want to try to make it look like he had nothing to do with the losses, but he clearly had something to do with the one win. That’s just dishonest, and not, in any way, objective. Even if there’s some way to prove he was in no way a liability (which there is not), his weakness is exposed by showing that he could not help. Nothing he did had any positive impact. He could not rally his base, and he could not sway independents. Considering those were his biggest strengths, his failures are the sign of a weak president. He could rebound, but that would require a serious change in policy and tactics. The message, initially, seems to be he will. Then again, he sold himself to the voters as a moderate, so honesty is not really his strong suit.
By No Way! on November 5th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
I heard he was watching the documentary of himself on HBO. What a loser!