100 Days Until the 2010 Midterm Elections: An Outlook

The 2010 Midterm Elections stand 100 days away. Democrats and Republicans have spent equal time trumpeting their talking points as a crucial election cycle nears the home stress. Democrats scrambled for twelve years to regain control of the United States Congress and now a mere four years later they see themselves standing on some unstable ground. Republicans had crucial missteps during the first half of the 2000s that led to their ouster in 2006. They have been punched and kicked pretty badly in 2006 as well as 2008; when Barack Obama was elected President of the United States and Democrats added to their gains from 2006. A Democratic "perfect storm" was created for Democrats to address their objectives and goals in an unified way like President Bush and the Republican Congress had done during six of the eight years of Bush's presidency.

Both have and will continue to spin the talking points and day to day polls and results their way. However, what will not be said by either side is that this November will based largely on local issues and concerns. National politics are formed from all the smaller parts of the country: the local politics. As will be examined, what has transpired since last November has been largely about local elections that have turned into a battle of words pitting Democrats versus Republicans in Congress and President Obama's agenda versus the Republican Party. Each election has been viewed by both parties to be solely about a referendum for or against the president. Ultimately, that has not been the case.

Might as well start in New Jersey. Last November, Republican Chris Christie defeated Democratic governor, Jon Corzine. In the wake of the election, Democrats looked to marginalize the loss by Corzine while the Republicans looked to exaggerate the victory by Christie. If you were to look at the electoral map following that election, you would see nothing too outrageous. Christie carried fairly conservative counties and Corzine carried fairly liberal counties with Christie doing better in toss-up areas and getting more votes from his base. But, do not think for one second that Christie defeating Corzine equals a vote against Obama. That might have been on some voters’ minds, but the outcome was based on the voters' concerns, which were taxes and the economy.

The race was between Christie and Corzine and not two imaginary forces. Not to mention the role that third party candidate Christopher Daggett played in the outcome. Daggett capitalized on an unusual opening for a third party candidate and picked up a larger percentage of the vote than most third party candidates would have gotten. Just because New Jersey leans Democratic does not guarantee anything. Corzine had higher disapproval ratings than approval ratings during his last year. It did not matter how popular President Obama was; Corzine was going to have to win or lose on his own record and popularity. So, for all the critics who viewed Corzine’s loss as a sign that people were turning against President Obama; those views too are rash judgments without much credibility. As the campaign and election played out, Christie displayed himself as enough of a change in Trenton and Corzine had dug himself a hole; partially created by himself and partially created by forces out of his control. Christie’s win over Corzine was based on the state of affairs in New Jersey and not what the temperature was like nationally.

What was occurring in New Jersey was also happening in Virginia as they too had a race for governor. Tim Kaine was more popular than Corzine, but he was not running, which opened the door in Virginia for a Republican to take back the state house. Creigh Deeds was certainly not as strong a candidate as Kaine would have been. Bob McDonnell was running a better campaign from the beginning and hence allowed him to take the lead in the campaign.

The major issues in Virginia were not terribly different from New Jersey as jobs and the economy were on voters’ minds. However, voters in Virginia had slightly different views and concerns based on those issues as the two states were in different places economically. Unlike in New Jersey, Barack Obama was not as visible and that was a combination of the White House, but more on Deeds’ campaign for not imploring Obama to come help in Virginia more. Compared to New Jersey, Virginia tends to lean more Republican and despite it becoming slightly more Democratic in the last few years; there still remains a large stronghold for the Republican Party in the state. Deeds, unlike the previous two Democratic governors and President Obama; was not able to capitalize on swing districts and did not pick up strong enough numbers in areas he carried. His loss was not contributed to being an unpopular incumbent like Corzine, but a poor campaigner with weaknesses that McDonnell stomped on as he won the election.

And lastly, the third race that November night that had a major impact involved a special election upstate New York. A vacancy was created by Republican John M. McHugh, who was nominated to become the Secretary of the Army last June. This special election involved New York’s 23rd congressional district. A district that has been one of the most conservative in the country to the point that it had been well over 100 years since a Democrat carried the district.

Bill Owens was nominated by the Democratic Party while Dierdre Scozzafava was nominated by the Republican Party. Scozzafava was not ultra conservative, but conservative enough to have no problem winning the district and election against Owens. However, the conservative base of the Republican thought it knew best. National conservatives like Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson interjected their voice and put their clout behind the Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Right before the election, Scozzafava withdrew from all the attacks she was receiving from the conservative base. With her withdrawal, she threw her support behind Owens. On election day, that would prove to be the crucial move in allowing Bill Owens to win the seat. The conservative ploy backfired in their face and they were left with one less member in the U.S. House of Representatives as important legislation was being moved forward. If the district outsiders had not tried to tell voters how to vote, the race might have and in all likelihood played out differently with either Scozzafava or Hoffman winning. This is another example of a race being locally based regardless of the fact that it was for a seat in the U.S. Congress. President Obama’ agenda had little impact on the outcome.

When the calendar turned to 2010, the drama and political conservation from those three races was only amplified. Before primary season would kick off, there was one big special election in Massachusetts to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy. The seat had been in Democratic hands for decades and was viewed as a must win for both parties. The outcome would either keep the Democrats' supermajority of sixty in the U.S. Senate or give the Republicans the one necessary vote to allow for a filibuster.

Paul Kirk was appointed to the seat, but per Massachusetts’ setup a special election had to be held roughly 160 days after the vacancy occurred, which set the table for an election in January. Martha Coakley was nominated by the Democratic Party and Scott Brown was nominated by the Republican Party. Coakley had a large advantage early on based on Massachusetts’ large Democratic base. But, her overconfidence and lack of urgency opened the door for Brown to begin to chip off her lead. From late summer to late 2009, he had closed a large gap to make the race neck-and-neck going into the final two weeks. Brown would surpass Coakley and defeat her in the special election to become the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. His victory was seen as this large referendum against Obama’s first year especially the health care legislation while Democrats began to backpedal a bit in response.

However, once again, this was not in the largest sense a national election. It was decided largely on Brown running a much smoother and aggressive campaign to Coakley's sloppy and non-energetic campaign. He is not a conservative and that plays well in a state like Massachusetts. And the kicker in a lot of the arguments is based upon Brown's victory being a call to arms against President Obama's proposed health care legislation. What Obama was proposing at that time was essentially what the residents in Massachusetts already had. A health care plan oddly enough implemented by a Republican governor in Mitt Romney. The same Mitt Romney, who voiced opposition to President Obama’s legislation that was basically a photocopy of his.

Two special elections in Hawaii and Pennsylvania in May would garner the next batch of headlines as a referendum for or against the Obama Presidency. First was the Pennsylvania, which had garnered as much if not more headlines than Massachusetts and New York's 23rd. The election was for the 12th congressional district in Pennsylvania, the seat held by the late John Murtha. Both parties viewed this special election has another gauge for November of where the nation was. The Democrats nominated Mark Critz and the Republicans nominated Tim Burns. Critz had worked with Murtha and chose to focus on that in addition to standing by his ideals and where he stood on the issues. He was not in favor of the health care legislation and was a proud gun owner. Points that a conservative or Republican would run on. So, the Republicans went about linking Critz to Obama/Reid/Pelosi. A tactic that they will almost certainly continue to use as November draws closer. The end result: Critz defeated Burns. Know why? Because voters voted based on how they felt locally and not nationally. They could not deny or forget all the money and resources that Congressman Murtha had brought to a struggling town and felt Critz would continue to do the same.

Then, there was a special election for Hawaii’s 1st congressional district with Neil Abercrombie resigning to run for governor. The race was a three way affair with Republican Charles Djou running against Democratic candidates Colleen Hanabusa and Edward Case. Case was preferred by the state’s U.S. Senators, President Obama, and DNC as the more moderate candidate with the best chance to win. Hanabusa had liberal groups in the state behind her. Both candidates wanted the other to withdraw for the party's sake, but would not withdraw themselves. The feud turned ugly and fractured the party in the state clearing the way for Djou’s victory and a talking point for the Republican Party. Djou does not win if the party had better unity. This outcome had nothing to do with what was transpiring in Congress.

Rand Paul and Joe Sestak emerged to win their respective primaries in May. Paul defeated Trey Grayson in Kentucky while Sestak defeated incumbent Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas fought off a vicious attack by labor unions to defeat Bill Halter in a run-off primary. Sharon Angle came out of a three way race in Nevada to win the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in a similar fashion as Paul. Primaries will continue into September. And it all likelihood, the same trend will continue: local politics will trump national politics. Each race was shaped more on the candidates in the races and what the temperature was like in those states than what the temperature was nationally. What matters in Kentucky or Pennsylvania might not matter as much in Arkansas. There were different elements in each of these races that led to the outcomes.

Each state has a different makeup and ultimately even in a race for U.S. President, it boils down to local matters and concerns. Local politics can be a city or county or it can be a district or a state. Both parties make the same mistakes with the Republicans; the party out of power; making them more often. Politics and elections are won and lost at the most basic level. If you try to make it about the Democratic agenda versus the Republican agenda, that is only going to cater to the parties’ bases. Granted, in an off year election like 2010; the bases are more vital. But you turn-off independents and swing voters with open hyperbole. Jobs and the economy are going to matter from California to New York. But it is about what specific details matter to a segment of eastern Missouri or a segment of southwestern New Mexico.

That is what is often missed with political games that are played by both parties. They go for the home run instead of the infield single. They prefer at times to win big or lose big. But, especially in a crucial election cycle like the one this fall; they need to stop over-analyzing their party's talking points. It will not change, but there is always hope. Because as each example shows; the election outcome was largely based on what mattered most locally. Whether it was unpopular governor in New Jersey or a mismanaged campaign in Virginia or Massachusetts to overstepping boundaries in New York or a mix of factors based upon the candidates in states like Arkansas, Pennsylvania, or Kentucky.

You cannot build a building without a base and support. When it comes to politics, local issues are that base to the building that makes up national politics. Many often just assume that what a national poll says will dictate how an election in a state or district will play out. Voters dislike being told how to vote; New York's 23rd is a perfect example. At the end of the day, all politics is local. And that is what ultimately affects election outcomes.