Reading Tea Leaves

The fact that I've let three days go by after an election without posting some commentary should give you an idea as to how busy I've been. But I've got a little lull on a Friday and I might as well post my thoughts.

There has been wicked spin on both sides as to what the results of Tuesday's election's meant. Obviously it was a good night for Republicans but I wouldn't call it the major smackdown of Mr. Obama that the Right is portraying it as. Likewise the Democratic wins in NY-23 and CA-10 do not demonstrate the the Republicans are devolving into a civil war between Conservatives and liberal Republicans. The easiest way to look at things is to take each race one by one.

VA Gov. - This is probably the easiest one to spin as a rebuke of current Democratic policies. Yes, Mr. Deeds was not the best candidate and Mr. McDonnall was already pulling ahead by the time Mr. Deeds told Mr. Obama to shove off; but, the fact that Lt. Gov. and AG were also won by Republicans with similar margins speaks to general disenchantment as a whole. It is also important to remember that unemployment is not as bad in Virginia as it is in other states so there was probably less general disenchantment with the status quo than there would be in a state like Ohio.

NJ Gov. - The Right wants to spin this one badly as a major rebuke of Mr. Obama. He stopped in NJ to campaign for Gov. Corzine at least five times and many key aspects of his campaign were being called from the White House. However, it is also important to remember that Mr. Corzine is extremely corrupt (and that's saying something for New Jersey) as well as a general jerk. Mr. Christie isn't exactly the winningest personality but his interview with Don Imus softened him up a bit to make him more palatable to voters. In general, it was a case where people who didn't like Mr. Corzine went to vote for Mr. Christie, but people who didn't like Mr. Christie didn't go to vote for Mr. Corzine. Result: the first Republican governor since 2002.

NY-23 - This was really more a bitch-slap to the Republican Party bosses and a warning to third-party wannabes. Mr. Hoffman entered into the race as a third party because there was no primary. He may have lost to Ms. Scozzafava in a primary, but he did petition the party bosses to be a regular candidate. That he was able to go from unknown to a 3-point loss with 45% of the vote in 30 days is pretty impressive. Add to the fact that he was a little hamstrung by Ms. Scozzafava dropping out and endorsing Mr. Owens (D) and it's something to make conservatives feel a bit better about themselves.

It must also be recognized that the Republican elites fouled up badly by picking a nominee who was far more to the left that what the district wanted. That Ms. Scozzafava went and turned on the Republicans after she dropped out, left the party bosses with even more egg on their faces. It would seem that the anger among the "masses" has finally started to register among those in the Washington cocoon.

Also needed to take a lesson is third-party folks (like Glenn Beck). Love them or hate them, the Democratic and Republican parties have the money and organization to get things done and get name recognition that an outsider just can't. There are also many people who just don't pay attention and will just vote if they see an "R" or a "D" and that is also difficult to overcome. If the conservatives want to regain the power they had in the Reagan days, they must go back in and do it under the umbrella of the party rather than trying to take their ball and go find another game. That will just split the vote and lead to many Democratic victories.

CA-10 - There was never a question that the Democrats were going to win this race. This is a liberal district bordering San Fransisco. However, Democrats might want to worry just a bit about the margins. Mr. Garamendi won 53-43 over Mr. Harmer. However the previous occupant of this seat usually won with 65% or better and Mr. Obama carried the district with better than 60% of the vote. People either didn't care or got complacent. That will happen in special elections where turnout is always lower, but it's another one of those red flags that Democrats might want to watch.

It is difficult to say if these four races reflect on what might or might not happen in 2010. Many things may happen in the coming year to sway the country further to the Right or Left. However, many Democrats do seem to be getting a little nervous about the possibility of a wave like happened in 1994.

The grand question is whether last year was 1976 or not. In 1976, Mr. Carter won over a moderate Gerald Ford who was unpopular due to policies reflecting his predecessor (Mr. Nixon). Mr. Carter went further to the left than the country was prepared for the economy went even further downhill. The result was a major victory for Mr. Reagan in 1980. It is far to early to say that Mr. Obama is Mr. Carter and it would be a great disservice to Mr. Reagan to say that anyone could have stepped up and won over Mr. Carter. Much depends on the person themselves. Still the parallels are interesting to look at and it might give an interesting perspective on the 2012 race, no matter who the Republican nominee is.