Part of the challenge in writing a political column in the U.S. is that the subjects are so limited: Democrats and Republicans. But now we have the influence of the Tea Party, which analysts are grateful for to have something else to talk about.
And talk about the Tea Party they are, in the wake of Christine O'Donnell's upset victory over Mike Castle in the Republican Senate primary Tuesday night. The stunning upset allowed Democrats nationally and in Florida to high five each other on Wednesday, giddy over what looked the influence of the Tea Party taking away a sure GOP victory in November.
Perhaps so. And what does that mean in terms of how many Senate seats will turn from Dems to Republicans? In a story in today's New York Times, you can read this:
One G.O.P. strategist in the Senate said on Tuesday night that he still sees his party easily picking up six additional seats in the Senate, an electoral result that would substantially shift the balance of power in Washington and force President Obama to adjust his approach to governing.
“If only 50 percent of the races up for grabs break our way, we pick up a net six,” he said. “And that’s bad?”
No it ain't. If you'll recall, it was considered heresy by some Democrats when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had the temerity to say on NBC's Meet The Press two months ago that the House of Representatives could go to the Republicans. Now there is the thought by some Democrats that "the House is lost," and they are desperately trying to hold on to the Senate, which they perhaps have a better chance now that the (as of now) extremely underfunded O'Donnell has won the nomination, and roiled at least the Delaware Republican party.
But can we challenge a couple of pieces of conventional wisdom here?
The first is that O'Donnell can't win. Really? Because Karl Rove said so?
There are national stories galore about who Christine O'Donnell is, and why people like Rove don't like her and don't give her a chance against the 48 year-old Democrat in the race, Chris Coons. Certainly it's an uphill battle, considering that other than the vanquished Castle, Delaware has not elected a Republican in any state or national election since 1994, with registered Democrats far outnumbering Republicans. And then there's this:
The battering of the primary campaign, including a raft of ads highlighting her failure to pay nearly $12,000 in federal taxes in 2005 and her default on house payments in 2007, also appears to have tarnished her reputation among general-election voters. A Public Policy Polling survey over the weekend of 958 likely voters found that 49% saw her as "unfit to hold office," compared with 31% who deemed her fit.
(To read a litany of some of her provocative comments on social issues, read here).
But in that same Wall Street Journal article, it's noted what has been the national trend all year in these primary elections: that Republican voters are way more motivated and are going to the polls in much larger numbers than Democrats.
Tuesday's turnout set a modern record for a Delaware Republican primary, with nearly a third of all registered Republicans heading to the polls—roughly four times the number in 2006. Ms. O'Donnell won not just in the conservative Sussex and Kent counties, but also in large parts of the much more populated and liberal New Castle County, which includes Wilmington and the suburbs of Philadelphia.
"Her surge in support surprised us pretty much all over the state," said one operative for the Castle campaign. "The question now is whether that surge will continue to grow."
We all know that there were hundreds of thousands more Republicans who voted in Florida last month than Democrats in our August 24 primary. Some of the excuses I heard from Democrats: that Alex Sink had no serious competition and thus voter turnout was lower with that party, is simply that, an excuse.
Now can the Democrats, in addition to trying to gin up their base (which they obviously need to do since they're voters are clearly not inspired based on polls and actual voter turn out) also pull some of those independents who possibly be growing wary of such Tea Party candidates like O'Donnell or Joe Miller of Alaska (who wants to privatize Social Security and phase out Medicare), who are winning these GOP primaries? That's a question that Democrat strategists need to be working on.
But getting out the base is still A-1, because they simply haven't been doing so all year long.
Now back to how well the Republicans will do this November. Again, basing it on the premise that we know historically (except in recent years 1998 and 2002) that the party out of power traditionally cleans up in off year elections, is it a given that the Republicans will at least win the House this fall?
Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report, says right now that there are likely to be 35 House seats turning over to Republicans, and another 35 could move their way if it is indeed a "wave" election.
It does seem to be trending that way, as an analysis from American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate reports that more than 4 million registered Republicans voting in the primaries this year (up until September 1) than registered Democrats, the first time the GOP has led that stat since 1930.
In writing about how the Tea Party Republicans could potentially be scaring off independent voters, pollster Nate Silver writes that scenario could prevent the Dems from losing either the House or Senate. But in the same paragraph, he somewhat backs away from that prediction:
Still, there’s the possibility that Republicans end up with a lot of half-loaves: independent voters get them almost close enough in some states and districts, base voters in some others, but they come up a few points short in a lot of key races and wind up winning “only” 30 House seats and 4 or 5 Senate seats. Or just the opposite could be true. Independent voters rally them to surprising wins in some blue-leaning states, while base voters shore up the home front and allow them to roll back the gains Democrat made in 2006 and 2008.
I'll just close by saying that sometimes overwhelming evidence indicates the good chance of an overwhelming outcome. But like Silver wrote, there's always the chance that something will happen new over the course of the next six weeks, and perhaps the outcome won't be as significant as it appears from this vantage point.
This article appears in Sep 16-22, 2010.