(These political analyses are given, not in my ministerial role, but simply to indulge my personal love for politics. Still, considering the venue, I seek to be objective and non-partisan, to whatever extent that is possible.)
While most of the country wasn't looking, and most political pundits were looking closely, a special election for a House seat in Florida was held yesterday, with a Republican beating a Democrat 49% to 47%, with another 5% going toward a libertarian. The Republican's key advantages in the race came with its history over the last 50 years as a Republican seat, and the general strong disapproval of Obamacare. The Democrat's key advantages came with her notoriety (she ran for governor in 2010), the current lean of the district--twice voting for President Obama, and her enormous, financial war chest (she ended up outspending the Republican by about a million dollars).
In a neutral year, based on the partisan lean of the district, the Democrat should win by a couple of points. Throw in the quality of the candidates, and the Dem should probably have won by 4-5%. The additional money reinforces that assumption. Both my favorite elections analyst and another, non-partisan elections guru make this point.
But the Republican ran against Obamacare, while the Democrat ran on a "Don't repeal it--fix it" platform and criticized the Rep's approach as extreme. The public sided with the Rep.
Politico, a left-of-center DC publication, wonders, through the Republican victor, whether this has implications for the mid-term elections in 2014. The analysts in the articles above would rightly counter not to read too much into one remote House race which attracted millions of extra dollars.
The election largely reinforces what most pundits and analysts already knew--it is not a neutral environment out there right now. People don't like either party, but they're particularly mad about Obamacare, to the extent that a Dem +2 (percent) district will vote for a Rep +2. Whether or not this will turn into a wave a la 2010 is yet to be seen, and shouldn't be assumed from this race.
As the large electoral picture is shaping up, if the election was held today (and Republicans had not shot themselves in the foot with a foolish political move or poor candidates), the Republican would easily maintain their control of the House--either losing or picking up a couple of seats, but nothing overwhelming in either direction.
The Senate, which is the key battleground, would probably provide better-than-even odds of a Republican takeover, which will require a net pickup of six seats. There are four Democratic seats that are already leaning Republican, and another three "toss-ups" that are tilting ever-so-slightly in the Republican direction. The Republicans are better-than-even money to take at least two of those three seats (NC, LA, and AK), and thus, the Senate.
Meanwhile, Republicans are also running neck-and-neck for other seats in Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, and New Hampshire if Scott Brown runs. Several other seats, including Virginia, are not out of the picture as well. If a wave develops, then Republicans could win 8-12 seats.
Looking longer term, the extra couple of seats would be very important for Republicans come 2016, when their victors in the 2010 wave become exposed in states like Illinois, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. There is a very good chance that--again, all things neutral--they will lose several Senate seats in 2016. Let the games begin!
No comments:
Post a Comment