First reaction to the election results today:
A win for the Democrats.
That's my take on it.
A win for the Democrats.
That's my take on it.
1. Arlen Specter was soundly defeated by Joe Sestak 53% to 47%. Sure, Specter was running in the Democratic primary, and he's been on the team since he defected. And Obama made a campaign stop for him -- but he didn't go back for the end game, and his support seemed tepid. My guess is that it was a promise from back when Specter crossed the aisle.
Personally, I'd much rather have Sestak. So it feels like a win for our team -- a real Democrat -- if he can win the general election.
2. The Democrat Mark Critz won the special election to fill John Murtha's seat, defeating Republican Tea Party supporter Tim Burns. They were neck and neck in the latest polls, so the victory shows momentum coming into the race.
3. Blanche Lincoln was forced into a runoff with her Democratic challenger in Arkansas, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, a former member of the Clinton administration. Lincoln had particularly angered the more liberal Democrats because of her opposition to the health reform bill.
In all three of these closely watched elections, the more liberal person won; or, in the case of Arkansas, the more liberal challenger forced the center-right incumbant into a run-off.
4. And then of course Rand Paul won big in the Republican primary in Kentucky -- but that could be good news for the Dems on November. How is this good for the Dems? Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders had endorsed his opponent, so it was a slap at them. A Tea Party darling, Paul is way to the right of his opponent. If he wins in Nov., we're probably no worse off than with the other guy. And, maybe he'll be too extreme for the middle and they'll vote for the Dem in November.
That's my midnight take on it.
Ralph
The early punditry is saying that it's a defeat for the establishment in both parties. True -- but I think on balance it's more anti-R than anti-D.
ReplyDeleteAnd where it was a special election pitting D against R, the D won in a come from behind race.
Also, it went against the middle in both directions. The Dems chose the more liberal one, while the Repubs chose the more conservative one. And the Repubs chose more far out ones than the Dems did. So in November, it will pit more extreme conservatives against good liberals.
OK -- maybe it's my defensive optimism tinting the glasses a rosy hue. We'll see.
I think you and the pundits are both right. It clearly was an anti-establishment vote. And that can be potentially dangerous - don't count out Paul in November. Anti-establishment voters can get rabid.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the Democrats did gain more. Unfortunately, it was not necessarily a pro-Obama vote. The Dems who won distanced themselves from him. So I'm not sure how that will play out in the Fall.
The best thing we have going for us is McConnell, who seems incapable of actually directing campaigns for the GOP.
I guess I'm concerned more about the top half of the glass than the bottom?
richard
I just learned that, in order to vote in the Kentucky Republican primary, one had to be registered by Dec 31,2009. Thus the recent rise of the Tea Party/Rand Paul phenomenon is not measured except among Republicans; how the independents and conservative Democrats will vote in November is still unknown. Or perhaps there is a hint in the fact that the Democrat beat the Republican in the special election for Murtha's seat.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I think it could go either way. Paul captured voter anger and demand for change. But, if you look at what he wants to do, it's pretty extreme -- abolish the Departments of Commerce, Education, and Energy; bring Congress to a halt until it approves a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget. By November, voters might have second thoughts about turning the government over to firebrand radicals. Or he may be just the message they want to send.
What is clear, based on these four races, plus Bennett's loss in Utah, as well as the Democratic primary results in the KY Senate race, where the more liberal Attorney General won by a narrow margin) is that the Republicans seemed to be going for the more conservative candidate and the Democrats for the more liberal one. How that plays out in November is the question.
I disagree that the loss by Specter and the relative loss by Lincoln are votes against Obama. He did support them, but we all know that their challengers are more likely to support his legislation; and I always read his tepid support as obligatory support by the president for incumbents from his own party.
Crist is far from liberal. Pro gun, anti-healthcare, prolife. He ran on the basis that he did not support Obama's policies. So he's not exactly an 'ally'.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of Paul. I don't think, unfortunately, that hurts him with Kentucky voters. Hope I'm wrong. We'll see.
richard
The point was not how liberal the winners were but that each was more liberal than the person he defeated. That is, of the choices given, voters chose the more liberal -- even though some may be far less that "liberals."
ReplyDeleteAs to not Paul's extreme views not hurting him with Kentucky voters: maybe not with those who voted in the primary; but independents could not vote in the primary. So it's them and the conservative democrats that may be turned off and vote for the democrat.
ReplyDelete