Republicans are proclaiming victory after their candidates won statehouses in New Jersey and Virginia. And well they should. These were both states that went for Barack Obama in 2008. But how much do these elections really say about Obama and the prospects of the national Democratic Party? Some network commentators, citing suspiciously high approval ratings for Obama in New Jersey and Virginia, claim the elections say nothing at all about the president and his party. I think that may be true of the New Jersey results, but I don’t think it’s true of the Virginia governor’s race or, in a perverse way, of the congressional race in upstate New York.
Virginia: Voters in the state’s off-year gubernatorial elections have backed the candidate of the party that does not control the White House in every election since 1977. So by this measure, it was to be expected that Republican Bob McDonnell would defeat Democrat Creigh Deeds. But there are reasons to believe that McDonnell’s easy victory, along with that of other Republicans in state races, had something to do with national politics.
Virginia, once a uniformly conservative state, now has a substantial moderate and liberal electorate, based primarily in the Northern Virginia suburbs. These voters have pushed state Democrats--once as conservative as the Republicans--to the center-left, and they’ve made sure those Democrats have a real chance in statewide elections. Democrats have controlled the governor’s office and most state offices since 2001; and both senators are now Democrats. So there was some reason to believe that a Democrat could win the governor’s office, particularly because with the current Democratic governor Tim Kaine remaining popular even during the recession, voters would be unlikely to display hostility toward the incumbent party in Richmond.
But McDonnell won easily, and Republicans also swept other statewide offices. McDonnell was clearly a better candidate than Deeds. He looked and talked like a governor, while the rumpled Deeds looked and talked like a frazzled high school principal. (My colleague Jason Zengerle speculates, too, that Deeds, a genuine product of rural and Southern Virginia, couldn’t appeal to Northern Virginia suburbanites, while McDonnell trumpeted his roots in Fairfax Country.) Deeds also appears to have slighted the black vote by failing to court major black figures in the state, including former governor Doug Wilder. And he also didn’t bring Obama into the state until it was too late. The final exit polls are not in, but there seems to have been a major falloff in black participation from 2008.
Deeds probably devoted too much of his campaign to dredging up the details of the male chauvinist graduate thesis that McDonnell wrote, and not enough to saying what he would do if he were governor. And what he did say--commendably intimating that he would raise taxes to fix Virginia’s transportation mess--got him in trouble. McDonnell, meanwhile, took his social conservative base for granted, and ran to the center, stressing the importance of jobs, transportation, and lower taxes.
In the exit polls, a majority of voters said Obama didn’t figure in their preferences, and Obama also scored relatively high in approval on exit polls. But I suspect that Obama was still a factor. If you look at the graphs that pollster.com puts up that average out the polling findings, you find that towards the end of July, or in early August, the margin between Deeds and McDonnell jumped, and remained high for the rest of the election. At the very same time, Obama’s approval numbers in Virginia plummeted, and except for some outlier polls, have remained below fifty percent.
In the polls put out by Public Policy Polling in North Carolina, a Democratic firm whose estimates in Virginia and New Jersey turned out to be remarkably accurate, McDonnell’s margin over Deeds jumped from six points to 14 points between June 30 and July 31. At the same time, Obama’s approval went from plus two to minus nine. On the eve of the election, PPP still had Obama with a minus nine in approval.
In PPP’s last poll, there is also another interesting correlation. The poll shows McDonnell winning 15 percent of the electorate that voted for Obama in 2008, and 13 percent of Democrats disapproving of the job that Obama is doing in office. That suggests that Democrats who disapproved of Obama were likely to vote for McDonnell. This is not to say that disapproval of Obama doomed Deeds; only that it may have been a factor in the defeat of Deeds and other Democrats on the statewide ticket.
Finally, there is a dog-that-didn’t-bark factor that affects all these races. In 1982, the Republicans under Ronald Reagan suffered relatively small losses in the congressional races partly because Reagan continued to energize the Republican base. In Virginia and elsewhere, Obama doesn’t seem to have energized the Democratic base. In the PPP polls in Virginia right before the election, only 38 percent of Democrats said they were “very excited” about the election compared to 64 percent of Republicans. That probably reflects a lack of interest in Deeds, but it may also reflect the lack of identification with Obama’s national Democratic Party.
COMMENTS (13)
Such an exhausting analysis. And what did we learn. Nothing more than we would reading the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and all the rest of the same old same old liberal media. Dick Gregory and The Roundtable will sum it all up for us on Face the Nation Sunday.
In fact that's the point by and large. When you sound like everyone else that means you read everyone else who sounds like you. Thus you know you are all on the same page.
Alas, even Obama has done nothing to crack it. On the contrary, he [gasp!] embodies it.
Democrats. Republicans. Liberals. Conservatives. All the same narratives year after year. It just gets a little more predictable.
I say thank God then for Pa ... view full comment
Such an exhausting analysis. And what did we learn. Nothing more than we would reading the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and all the rest of the same old same old liberal media. Dick Gregory and The Roundtable will sum it all up for us on Face the Nation Sunday.
In fact that's the point by and large. When you sound like everyone else that means you read everyone else who sounds like you. Thus you know you are all on the same page.
Alas, even Obama has done nothing to crack it. On the contrary, he [gasp!] embodies it.
Democrats. Republicans. Liberals. Conservatives. All the same narratives year after year. It just gets a little more predictable.
I say thank God then for Palin, Beck and the Republican crackup. A new predictable narrative will now have to be generated.
Nail it, John.
; o )
gw
Without a doubt, elections these days are smack dab in the middle of "it's the economy, stupid" again.
But how will this play out?
An interesting point is raised by Peter Beinart at the Daily Beast today. Social issues and national security, he claims, have now given way to a new "culture war"---one revolving around the economy:
....we’re witnessing a new style of conservative activism: motivated, above all, by economic fury. It’s a bit like what happened during the Depression, when the cultural issues that had dominated American politics in the 1920s—Prohibition, immigration, the Ku Klux Klan—faded and the right coalesced around deep hatred of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Today’s ... view full comment
Without a doubt, elections these days are smack dab in the middle of "it's the economy, stupid" again.
But how will this play out?
An interesting point is raised by Peter Beinart at the Daily Beast today. Social issues and national security, he claims, have now given way to a new "culture war"---one revolving around the economy:
....we’re witnessing a new style of conservative activism: motivated, above all, by economic fury. It’s a bit like what happened during the Depression, when the cultural issues that had dominated American politics in the 1920s—Prohibition, immigration, the Ku Klux Klan—faded and the right coalesced around deep hatred of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Today’s shift also vaguely mirrors the early 1990s, when Ross Perot, who exuded indifference to cultural issues, won over large numbers of ex-Republicans by making the deficit a symbol of government run amok.
george:
But is this what's really motivating the outrage---anger at philosophical questions about "the role of government" in the economy?
Or, instead, is it anger at Wall Street for collapsing the economy, profiting from it while generating a great recession culminating in the loss of milions and millions of jobs---and with no end in sight?
Is the rage here really a display of principled "libertarian" disgrunglement from folks on Main Street? God help us if it is.
Instead, I suspect it it is rooted far more in the visceral existential reality of economic misery that has nothing to do with CATO and Ron Paul. The real tragedy unfolding here of course is that, once again, their misery will be taken out on the Democrats. They'll elect Republicans in their place.
And not a fucking thing will have changed.
george walton
I just hope Republicans take away the wrong lesson from this election and keep thinking that tea partying is the path back to power.
Next year's GOP primaries should be very interesting, indeed.
I just hope Republicans take away the wrong lesson from this election and keep thinking that tea partying is the path back to power.
Next year's GOP primaries should be very interesting, indeed.
In New Jersey, where I live, Corzine lost mostly because of voters' anger over our special blend of corruption and high property taxes. He is an intelligent honorable man who tried to restore fiscal order to state government but was stymied by opposition from the usual mix of anti-government Republicans and cowardly special interest Democrats. Most of the State House representatives from my county, Hudson, are just uncommonly stupid. Corzine's technocratic, uninspiring, inarticulate public persona didn't help with voters.
New Jerseyans don't want to make choices. If they want more efficient government, they'll have to consolidate some more of our 550 teensy-weensy towns, just as many school ... view full comment
In New Jersey, where I live, Corzine lost mostly because of voters' anger over our special blend of corruption and high property taxes. He is an intelligent honorable man who tried to restore fiscal order to state government but was stymied by opposition from the usual mix of anti-government Republicans and cowardly special interest Democrats. Most of the State House representatives from my county, Hudson, are just uncommonly stupid. Corzine's technocratic, uninspiring, inarticulate public persona didn't help with voters.
New Jerseyans don't want to make choices. If they want more efficient government, they'll have to consolidate some more of our 550 teensy-weensy towns, just as many school districts (many of them pointless), and other government entities. They'll have to raise our gas tax, currently the lowest or 2nd lowest in the country. They'll have to pay more attention to the details of our municipal, county, and state governments. Ex. I am told that one-square-mile Hoboken's police chief makes more than does Ray Kelly, NYC's police chief. New Jersey voters are lazy; they're not willing to do their homework and make choices. There's too, too much political patronage, dual-office holding, and overly generous public pensions. Instead the voters had a tantrum and voted in a Reagan-style conservative like Christopher Christie, who doesn't look promising as a rational good-guvvie typle.
Regarding the excessive number of government entities, NJ has 550 towns compared with comparably-sized Connecticut's 167. NJ has significant county governments, Connecticut's counties exist only on paper.
Good riddance, the Republicans can have NJ - they deserve each other.
Good riddance, the Republicans can have NJ - they deserve each other.
zardoz67, amen to that.
Christies primary opponent, Lonegan, was hard right. he said this: Lonegan proposed ending what he termed the "immoral" progressive income tax with rates up to 8.97 percent and replacing it with a flat tax of 2.9 percent.
When asked by a reporter whether his plan would mean a tax increase for the working poor, Lonegan replied that that was the whole point. He wants everyone, rich and poor, to pay the cost of government. Asked if that means giving a break to the wealthy, Lonegan again said that was his point, and it would keep rich taxpayers from fleeing the state. "Eight-point-nine percent of nothing is nothing," he said.
If Lonegan had won the primary, Corzine would ha ... view full comment
zardoz67, amen to that.
Christies primary opponent, Lonegan, was hard right. he said this: Lonegan proposed ending what he termed the "immoral" progressive income tax with rates up to 8.97 percent and replacing it with a flat tax of 2.9 percent.
When asked by a reporter whether his plan would mean a tax increase for the working poor, Lonegan replied that that was the whole point. He wants everyone, rich and poor, to pay the cost of government. Asked if that means giving a break to the wealthy, Lonegan again said that was his point, and it would keep rich taxpayers from fleeing the state. "Eight-point-nine percent of nothing is nothing," he said.
If Lonegan had won the primary, Corzine would have clobbered him.
To be honest, I like Christie and am not unhappy he won, especially with Corzine's reprehensible fat commercials. And, if I still lived in Jersey, I would have considered voting for him like I did Kean and Whitman. The only reason I would have voted for Corzine is to spite the national Republicans. I shouldn't think like that, I myself have said America needs two serious and mature parties.
Amidut, I used to work in Teterboro, the town that then had only 22 residents, not one of whom was a homeowner (the houses were owned by a company). It had its own town hall, mayor, city employees, etc. The town was essentially created as a tax haven for business. I can't even begin to tell you the crap that went on when they tried to evict the 22 residents. In the end since the residents controlled the town, they built themselves housing. The whole thing was insane.
Amen Blackton - Corzine lost the minute those commercials came out. They shone an ugly spotlight on Corzine AND brought Christie alot of positive publicity at a crucial point - who even knew who he was before that? Corzine deserved to lose for such a stupid strategy.
zarz, not to pick on your state - I'm a Californian and its hard to find a more screwed up set of voters in the land. They make New Jersy folks look like the First Congress.
Amen Blackton - Corzine lost the minute those commercials came out. They shone an ugly spotlight on Corzine AND brought Christie alot of positive publicity at a crucial point - who even knew who he was before that? Corzine deserved to lose for such a stupid strategy.
zarz, not to pick on your state - I'm a Californian and its hard to find a more screwed up set of voters in the land. They make New Jersy folks look like the First Congress.
Well, obviously I'm pleased with the guv races, but I'm not sure they and the Congressional special elections say much, if anything, about national politics. Yes, Obama won VA, but may not next time - it's still a pretty center-right place. He will win NJ again, Christie or no.
As for NY-23, I would not have voted for Dede, either. Repubs ain't for card-check, period. Most aren't for gay marriage, either. Oh, and I see that issue maintained its perfect record - every time people vote on it, gay marriage loses. Soon it won't, but not yet.
Well, obviously I'm pleased with the guv races, but I'm not sure they and the Congressional special elections say much, if anything, about national politics. Yes, Obama won VA, but may not next time - it's still a pretty center-right place. He will win NJ again, Christie or no.
As for NY-23, I would not have voted for Dede, either. Repubs ain't for card-check, period. Most aren't for gay marriage, either. Oh, and I see that issue maintained its perfect record - every time people vote on it, gay marriage loses. Soon it won't, but not yet.
I also would not read too much into this in terms of national politics. From a personal standpoint, I prefer a balance of power between the parties (as Blackton said above, we need two serious and mature parties). I suspect there might have been a few independent voters in Virginia and NJ who felt the same way.
I also would not read too much into this in terms of national politics. From a personal standpoint, I prefer a balance of power between the parties (as Blackton said above, we need two serious and mature parties). I suspect there might have been a few independent voters in Virginia and NJ who felt the same way.
This is a minor point in the article, I'll admit, but I disagree that the GOP suffered "minor losses" in '82. The Democrats picked up 27 seats. There may have been more dramatic midterm gains by the party out of power in the past, but remember that the Democrats already had 252 seats, which means that, probably, most of the remaining seats were gerrymandered in a way that they were solidly GOP no matter what the overall environment.
This is a minor point in the article, I'll admit, but I disagree that the GOP suffered "minor losses" in '82. The Democrats picked up 27 seats. There may have been more dramatic midterm gains by the party out of power in the past, but remember that the Democrats already had 252 seats, which means that, probably, most of the remaining seats were gerrymandered in a way that they were solidly GOP no matter what the overall environment.
Merci, Wandreycer, ma cherie! We will be glad to rid you of New Jersey, home of memorable tomatoes, the pharmaceutical industry and the world's finest hoagies.
I think the most interesting issue of the next year will be who works hardest to kill off the Blue Dogs: their liberal D colleagues or the conservative Rs who want to unseat them. If ever there was a time post-1932 in which the real political truth was "it's the economy, stupid" it was 2009, not 1993. But, youd never guess that from the actions of the most liberal president and congressional majority post-1932. Their attention is riveted on other priorities, and will stay riveted there, even though sizeable numbers of the voters wh ... view full comment
Merci, Wandreycer, ma cherie! We will be glad to rid you of New Jersey, home of memorable tomatoes, the pharmaceutical industry and the world's finest hoagies.
I think the most interesting issue of the next year will be who works hardest to kill off the Blue Dogs: their liberal D colleagues or the conservative Rs who want to unseat them. If ever there was a time post-1932 in which the real political truth was "it's the economy, stupid" it was 2009, not 1993. But, youd never guess that from the actions of the most liberal president and congressional majority post-1932. Their attention is riveted on other priorities, and will stay riveted there, even though sizeable numbers of the voters who put them in the catbird seat(s) have doubts about their priorities. They are counting on the Rs to disembowel themselves, and my crowd may not disappoint them. Of course, my crowd is hoping the Ds will disembowel themselves, and this is not an irrational thought either.
Moderates of the nation, unite (i.e., get off your dead asses). The zealots in each party are in control, and their passions and hatreds may be of interest to you, but not to the point of passion or hatred. Take back control!
I'm not convinced that these examples were due to candidates being centrists. It comes down to the matchups and who can turn out the base in an off-year election. I'd say the "center" was the best bet for McDonnell due to Deeds running a negative campaign and running away from issues that turn out the Democratic base. McDonnell was smart to keep Palin and the teabaggers out of sight while taking the high road and will have some momentum behind him as a result when he's sworn in. The Republicans have good reason to be pleased with McDonnell's win. They were desperate for some fresh faces at the governor level and they got one from a guy who ran a mostly positive campaign and won easily. ... view full comment
I'm not convinced that these examples were due to candidates being centrists. It comes down to the matchups and who can turn out the base in an off-year election. I'd say the "center" was the best bet for McDonnell due to Deeds running a negative campaign and running away from issues that turn out the Democratic base. McDonnell was smart to keep Palin and the teabaggers out of sight while taking the high road and will have some momentum behind him as a result when he's sworn in. The Republicans have good reason to be pleased with McDonnell's win. They were desperate for some fresh faces at the governor level and they got one from a guy who ran a mostly positive campaign and won easily. I can't remember the last time that kind of exposure occurred for them.
I don't think the same can be said about Christie. Corzine's campaign certainly went negative, but aside from criticizing Christie's weight, the shots were well-deserved. Christie was once ahead by nearly twenty points until it was shown how his overblown claims as a corruption fighter turned out to be false to say the least. Using his former position to circumvent hiring protocol in an effort to get people loyal to him into positions of power doesn't strike me as a break with the supposed corrupt business as usual NJ politics. I doubt he enters that job with much better approval ratings than Corzine and he has almost zero honeymoon. If even more of his past transgressions become exposed, he could wind up a lame duck very quickly.
NY-23? Hoffman couldn't answer any questions asked of him by local voters and that's never a good thing when the candidate already doesn't even live in the district as it is. He looked like Palin being asked to explain the Bush Doctrine. He knew less about the concerns of his would-be-constituents than I do, and that reflected badly on not just him but Palin, Pawlenty, Club For Growth and the rest of the fringe that tried to hijack a local election for their own transparent agenda. Being a centrist wasn't the deal-breaker in that one either.
I think whoever better walks the walk and talks the talk and drives the nicer car gets the girl. When things don't work out there's a divorce. In my estimation, it will come down to whether its time for another divorce.
I think whoever better walks the walk and talks the talk and drives the nicer car gets the girl. When things don't work out there's a divorce. In my estimation, it will come down to whether its time for another divorce.