« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The 2009/2010 special elections, to date.

I’d like to unpack this paragraph from the Hotline, mostly because the assumptions behind it are in in large part why the Democrats all of a sudden have found themselves in trouble this election cycle.

But the elections present a problem for the NRCC, too. The 2 specials so far during Pres. Obama’s term have both been in GOP-heavy seats. Dems have won both. The DCCC knows how to run and win a race; special elections put pressure on the NRCC, which already has limited resources, to demonstrate they can too.

To begin: “The 2 specials so far during Pres. Obama’s term have both been in GOP-heavy seats. Dems have won both.”

Err. No. To quote a scientist friend of mine; that’s not even wrong.

Even assuming that we’re merely talking about House elections held after January 20, 2009 – which we should not be; there were two Louisiana special elections between the election and the Inauguration that the Democrats tried and failed to win – there have been five races, not two.

Race Cook PVI Old New
CA-10 D+11 Dem Dem
CA-32 D+15 Dem Dem
IL-05 D+19 Dem Dem
NY-20 R+2 Dem Dem
NY-23 R+1 GOP Dem

Of the five of those races, the two that came closest to ‘GOP-heavy’ are the two in New York – and neither deserves the title, as they’re both swing districts.  Looking at them:

  • NY-20 was Gillibrand’s old seat – which means it was held by a Democrat.  The challenger (Tedisco) was picked by the local GOP organization, and he stumbled badly out of the gate by guessing wrong on the popularity of the stimulus.
  • NY-23 was the Scozzafava/Owens/Hoffman race, and it is frankly not useful as a measurement for anything.  The local GOP again picked the nominee, who was well to the Left of the Democratic pick, and who was the only candidate who was flatly unacceptable to the NY Conservative party, which is why they did not join the GOP on a fusion ticket.  The eventual Conservative party candidate eventually drove the Republican candidate out of the race, whereupon she endorsed the Democratic nominee out of spite – leading to the Democratic candidate winning*.  That’s not an election: it’s a two-part television docudrama.

So, even assuming that you don’t include the two LA races, the special election history for this cycle consists of four Democratic party retentions and one flip, with the flip being part of one of the more lurid political dramas in recent history.  And I should also note here that in neither case in NY was the NRCC working with a candidate who was either in tune with the national base, or actually chosen by local voters.  This will be important to remember, later.

Next up: The DCCC knows how to run and win a race; special elections put pressure on the NRCC, which already has limited resources, to demonstrate they can too.

Let’s concede from the start that everything after the semicolon is correct for the NRCC… as long as we concede that the bit about pressure is true for the DCCC, too.  It is not difficult to win three special elections where your party’s delegate is heavily favored to win.  It is also not difficult to win a special election where the Other Side’s partisans have openly decided to teach their own state party a lesson.  And it is not all that difficult to win a special election where you have the incumbency advantage and the opposing candidate has stumbled out of the gate; except that in NY-20, the DCCC came within a razor’s edge of losing.  All in all, the proposition that the DCCC is good at winning races this cycle is based on a reed that is thinner than it looks.  Maybe a little thinner; maybe a lot thinner; maybe not thinner enough to matter.  We’ll see how it goes.

My conclusion?  The reputation for effectiveness of the two parties’ House committees is dependent on the relative quality of the candidates in the individual races (which is something that neither the NRCC nor the DCCC has control over).  When they have good candidates (or ‘good enough’ candidates for a particular district) to work with and the other side has bad ones (or ‘not good enough’ candidates for a particular district), the good candidates win.  It’s the districts where they both have good candidates that will be most of interest, and we really haven’t seen that play out yet.

But we will.

Moe Lane

*And then setting a speed record for breaking a campaign promise, which is why he shouldn’t unpack his bags.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

COMMENTS

  • spim

    … we’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t try to harsh our feelings of smug superiority with your silly “facts” and “reason”.

    We don’t use them … we can’t even *begin* to fathom why you radical extremists think they’re so important.

    What’s actually important to us and virtually all of America (other than you teeny-tiny number of few radical wing-nuts) is that we simply *feel good* about what we’re doing.

  • redneck_hippie

    via hotair headlines

    http://twitter.com/TheFix/statuses/11734900367

  • renny

    hundreds of thousands would not have taken to the streets from the comfort of their middle class homes since February of 2009 to protest excessive and exorbitant Dem. spending, incredibly increased national debt, and nitwit legislation like the ?stimulus? and ?health seizure .?

    It seems to me, despite the House results, the GOP, dithering and underfunded as it sometime is, took the governorships in VA and NJ (in NJ which is 3-1 Dem. registration) while the “Kennedy” Sen. seat in MA went Rep. for the first time since 1952, even with “superiority” of Dem. whatever.

    Additionally, were the Dems. in such good positions across the board, it wouldn’t have taken 15 months, blackmail, bribes, deals, pres. EO’s, and other legislative nonsense and contemplating ?Demon Pass? to vote Obamanationcare, which is now opposed by 18 states and a dozen private organizations and individuals in law suits, a really rare occurrence for major legislation by any party.

    See you bums in court.

  • earlgrey

    but I keep getting hung up on approval ratings. Today’s Rasmussen numbers are pretty high (48% approval) for the President. How can that be?

  • erod

    and it ain’t looking good for the Dims.

  • erod

    and it ain’t looking good for the Dims.

  • Castor

    CHARLES DJOU : HAWAII 01 GOP Pickup!

  • tngal

    Moe, when you wrote

    “When they have good candidates (or ?good enough? candidates for a particular district) to work with and the other side has bad ones (or ?not good enough? candidates for a particular district), the good candidates win”

    It just really reminded me of Marsha – um, Martha Coakley. She should have won but she took her voter block for granted and did something almost everyday to screw up her campaign. Either her or her enterage. Brown may not have been the most conservative person in the world but given the choices he was the best one in that place at that time in history.

    Coakley and Scozzafava should get together for coffee. They’d like each other.

  • redneck_hippie

    He’s now ahead of Alexi

    http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/kirk-moves-ahead.html

    via Pejman/TNL

  • Dan McLaughlin

    Another lesson here is that the NY voters hate their comically inept and chronically corrupt state legislature. The NY GOP has gone 0 for 2 running candidates who were incumbents from that legislature.

    Unfortunately for the Dems, very few of the candidates running in House races this fall will be members of the NY State Legislature.

  • usedtobelib

    Ramussen’s overall approval: -11 this morning. It’s been up and down a bit since the hc passage with his best showing since that time at -8 if memory serves me correctly. So, it’s headed down again. I expect it to go down even further in the next few days what with the talk of a VAT and with his recent “rewording” of our nuclear weapons policy.

    Oh, and let us not forget that his baseball remarks about “Kiminsky Park” and his inability to sound as if he knows anything about either the Sox or baseball in general won’t help either. I think the males of this country are discovering he’s a poser–not the alpha male they thought him to be.

    BTW, wouldn’t you think a Harvard grad would know something about American cultrual history in the early part of the 20th Century? The 1919 Black Sox scandal is always part of the study of that era, right up there with the Roaring 20s, prohibition, Scott Fitzgerald and Gatsby, the House that Ruth built, and yes, in those studies is always the mention of Mr. Comiskey. So, how the heck does someone who even lives in Chicago not know the name of that park?

    Oh, yeah, I guess the same way he doesn’t know that “corpse” is not pronounced the same way as “corps.” He’s a guy who has a decent IQ but all it’s been good for is to fake his way through things.

  • IJB

    CA-10 is a D+11 district that Dem candidates usually win roughly 64/36 (or better). Yet, in the 2009 special election, Garamendi, a Dem figure known statewide for decades, managed only a measly 53%-43% win. For district like CA-10, that is a *shockingly* pathetic win for the Dems.

    Even CA-32, which is a D+15 district that Dems usually win with 70% of the vote (or better against Republicans – against just Libertarians they win it with +80%), they only managed 60% of the vote in the 2009 special.

    IOW, in *both* districts there was about a +10% ‘swing’ *to* the GOP. Granted, these were ‘lower turnout’ special elections, but still!

    If the GOP replicates those results nationally, I think they’d win something approaching 100 additional House seats.

    Thus, it’s not surprising that Politico and the Dems don’t want to focus on those results!

  • The_Rebel

    I would like to see what Obama’s and Congress’ approval ratings were at the time of those races vs. what they are today. Plus, a lot has happened since those races and most of it hasn’t been good for the Dems. And talk of more taxes, a VAT, card check, cap & trade, amnesty for illegals, no health care penalties for illegals, throwing Israel under the bus, and the nuclear stand-down, are but a few of the issues that will further destroy any chances the Dems have in November.

  • merryj1

    My son-in-law’s mother, a die-hard, to-the-bone liberal, who has never pulled an “R” lever and is an official in her teacher’s union, told me she “wanted me to be the first to know” (Easter dinner — my daughter has “prohibited” me from talking about politics at these family gatherings) that she was voting for Kirk and against Gian-what’s-his-face. That tells me the union (teacher’s) rank-and-file is a likely Kirk voting bloc (the Dem is currently IL Treasurer, and the teacher’s union pension fund has been pilfered).

  • redneck_hippie

    That also went on in CA, where they have underfunded (translation: pension funds raided) three union pension funds to the tune of 550 billion dollars. Heard on Rush today, no link.

  • http://www.chicagobluesgirl.com chicagobluesgirl

    http://chicagobluesgirl.com/2009/04/01/the-raping-of-illinois-teacher-retirement-system/

    You may be interested….