What the Election Results Mean (And Don't Mean)

Last night’s elections yielded a happily mixed result. The GOP picked up the two governorships that were at stake, reclaiming the governor’s mansions in Richmond and Princeton from Democratic incumbents. The Democrats held on to a congressional race in California and picked up a GOP seat in upstate New York that had become the object of national attention. All-in-all, the results are an invitation to the political leaders of the country to get to work.

Last night was a very bad day to be an incumbent or from the incumbent’s party. Gov. Corzine lost in New Jersey and in New York City, despite all expectations, Mayor Michael Bloomberg had a surprisingly difficult race despite spending $100 million dollars of his own money against an opponent who did not spend a tenth of that amount. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, Governor’s are limited to one-term, but the Democrats have held that office for the past eight years. The last time a Republican lost in New York 23 was in 1872.


Watching the analysts and the talking heads is becoming more difficult. Maybe I am just getting older, but who believes their talking points? GOP National Chairman Michael Steele was convinced that the results were a clear rebuke to President Obama’s agenda although the only two races that were selecting candidates who will be able to vote on that agenda in Congress both went to the Democrats. James Carville dismissed the losses in Virginia and New Jersey as fitting a historical pattern, which is true, but without explicating that historical pattern which is a pattern of suspicion of power, which hardly bodes well for a party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress. And, Eric Cantor was so disingenuous in his spinning, you could tell he was having a hard time keeping a straight face when Chris Matthews grilled him.

The commentariat is not much better. If David Gergen repeated the phrase "The winds are changing" one more time I was going to scream. Virtually every anchor talked about how the Democratic coalition that elected Obama did not turn out, which is another way of saying that this was an off-year election when turnout plummets. We knew that already.

The hardest thing for many in Washington and New York City to believe is that there are local undercurrents to local elections that are opaque from 212 and 202. In Virginia, Creigh Deeds ran a terrible, terrible race. I saw his ads and cringed. Bob McDonnell’s campaign was crisp and clean, upbeat, more Obama in tone than Palinesque. And, it is not hard to believe that the sturdy souls who live in New York’s North Country resented the intrusion of outsiders with their own agendas. Listening to both Congressman-elect Owen’s acceptance speech and Doug Hoffman’s concession speech, you realize how local politics is about more than being telegenic or being able to deliver a great speech. (But, you have to love the way Hoffman puts an "r" at the end of the word "idea.") Conservatives had predicted a win in NY-23 and they had already begun to salivate at the prospect of taking down other GOP moderates like Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Last night, there was a lesson and Crist should not have slept more easily but neither should his conservative opponent Marco Rubio. Democratic candidate Kendrick Meeks, on the other hand, slept soundly.

The electorate likes to send mixed messages, which is why the Baucus bill became the focus of the debate on health care. The American people want both parties to work together, even while that seems almost impossible given the different ideological suppositions of the two parties. There will not likely be an outbreak of bipartisanship anytime soon, but the mixed results do have the effect of causing the party in power to temper its ambitions. The results last night are an invitation to cautiousness. Too bad the times may call for boldness.




Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
James Lindsay
9 years 4 months ago
I see you ignored (probably wisely for your magazine) Maine Question 1, which was supported heavily by the local bishop. The fact that these races are becoming squeakers does not bode well for those in the hierarchy who fear gay marriage - not because the government will make them perform such rites (they can't be forced to under the First Amendment) but because Catholic families with gay children (and parents) who get married when (not if) gay marriage is decreed by the federal courts will demand them from within.

When 30% of the major donors to the annual diocesean appeal demand that the Chruch bless the weddings of their gay children, many will find it uncomfortable to say no. (Many likely are uncomfortable saying no in any case, given that there are studies of clergy that find a large percentage of it is made of celebate (and not so celebate) gays.
Jim McCrea
9 years 4 months ago
Michael is absolutely correct.
It won't be long until the lowerarchy says:  "As the Church has always taught ...." and then will weasel-word their way out of anti-gay marriage and into support based on internal personal, emotion and financial pressure from the folks in the pews.


The latest from america

Before long I had tears in my eyes—and not from the uneven grooves worn into the wood by pilgrims’ knees. Something about the physical discomfort helped me to focus on the much greater pain Jesus had felt on those same stairs.
Over against our human unreliability stand the rock-solid assurances of God.
The latest survey, conducted in January, found that 44 percent of white Catholics approve of President Trump’s job performance.
Today and everyday we are invited to pray with the psalmist.