Could It Happen Anywhere? No–But It Doesn’t Have To

Last night, a Republican candidate without a political background won an upset in New York’s 9th Congressional District–which is in the middle of Queens.  He defeated a popular Democratic State legislator after the latter linked him–plausibly–to the Tea Party, which polls rather badly with the general public and has little support in cities.  This was the district represented by Congressman Anthony Weiner, who resigned earlier this summer when it was revealed that he repeatedly presented lewd comments and photographs to women he met online (and then lied about it).  It was Conservative-ish by Queens standards, with a relatively large concentration of white Democrats and Orthodox Jews, but with the exception of Staten Island as a rule no Congressional District in New York City is Republican.

Some Republicans will try to cast this upset as a bellwether of Republican victories in all parts of the country in 2012; such claims are hyperbole, resting on either faulty memory or partisan cant.  Seats vacated owing to scandal change hands reliably during the special elections that follow, which are often low-turnout affairs wherein the incumbent party often has difficulty turning out the base due either to demoralization or the cognitive dissonance produced by the very fact of the special election.  If there is any doubt about this, consider the 2006 midterm Congressional Elections, in which Democrat Nick Lampson won Texas’ 22nd Congressional District–which had been Tom DeLay’s until he faced charges for illicit diversion of campaign funds; consider also the loss of Ted Stevens, at the time the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, to Democrat Mark Begich in 2008 following a campaign finance scandal of his own.  Then there is this past May, when the most-Republican Congressional District in New York (the 26th) voted for a Democrat following Congressman Christopher Lee’s embarrassed resignation following a similar but even more-bizarre scandal than the one the toppled Congressman Weiner.  (Congressman Lampson lost his very-Republican district in the next election to the current Congressman, Republican Pete Olson; Begich is still in his 1st term in a very Republican State.)  The point is that losses in special elections follow a local logic.

In recent elections, it has sometimes appeared that these special elections in the shadow of scandal have augured wave elections favoring the opposition party; this theory would make more sense if a Democratic upset just prior to the summer hadn’t been followed by a Republican upset late in the summer.  More-likely these low-turnout special elections follow their own uncomplicated if sometimes surprising logic.  After the enormous Republican gains in the House of Representatives last year, there just aren’t many House seats they could appeal in in a general election.  What the election of a Republican in New York’s 9th Congressional District does indicate is the depth of dissatisfaction towards President Obama.

A very large cross-section of the public has embraced the narrative that President Obama’s economic policies have failed.  In the New York Times report on this election, many voters asked about their vote volunteered both that they were Democrats and that they voted as a referendum on President Obama’s handling of the economy.  The fact that they have judged his economic policies are a failure and should be replaced doesn’t itself validate that this is so, of course, but the fact is that the 1.5 million–3.5 million jobs the Congressional Budget Office estimates were created or saved by the President’s 2009 Stimulus don’t come close to addressing the 14 million unemployed, 8.8 million underemployed, and the roughly-1 million discouraged job hunters the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in August.  (The unemployment rate, stuck around 9.1%, would have to be halved and underemployment almost eliminated for us to return to a situation we consider “normal.”)  The chances of President Obama’s latest stimulus plan passing through the Republican House are poor, unless he consents to Republican demands to make the stimulus deficit-neutral without raising taxes–meaning that it is paid for out of current Federal spending.  If the President doesn’t accommodate Republican demands in this way, they have no real incentive to act on his plan.  Most of the measures he has proposed, such as grants to States to maintain teachers’ jobs, about $50 billion in transportation spending, an extension of unemployment insurance and an extension of the payroll tax cut for employees, will save or create jobs intrinsically and help some small businesses by boosting consumption, but in aggregate there’s no reason to expect that this will reduce the unemployment rate or encourage investment sufficiently to foster a visible recovery over the next year.

Right now many typical constituents of the Democratic Party seem to be eager to go on the record that they don’t think the President has done enough to fix the economy.  Last November, the Liberal Ironist argued that this failure to restore some modicum of confidence about our economic prospects was the reason the Republicans cleaned up both up and down the ballot in the 2010 midterm elections.  Right now, I don’t believe the President has a path to mitigate this perception open to him.  Some Liberal opinion-makers have argued the President should go for broke promoting a bold agenda in the Roosevelt tradition.  I’d be receptive to such an initiative on principle, but I don’t think the independent voters that give the edge in a presidential election would be.  Meanwhile, Democrats are coming forward and volunteering their belief that the President’s economic policies simply haven’t worked.

This week Republicans may be crowing that they’re going to be winning Congressional races in impossible places; this exultation is unjustified.  They will, however, be making another strong claim that is justified.


2 thoughts on “Could It Happen Anywhere? No–But It Doesn’t Have To

  1. J-Doug

    This is about as irrelevant an election as there could possibly have been. It’s one house seat– rather it’s half a house seat because the there will be another election next November, and special elections have been shown to indicate nothing significant about broader political trends.

    This race wasn’t worth the hourly wages the mainstream media paid their journalists to cover it.

    1. liberalironist Post author

      Methinks you doth protest too much. Recent special elections–both for Congress and for the Senate–have in fact tended to mirror the generic ballot. In case I rambled too much, I’ll just repeat my point: When a Congressional District that’s safe for the President’s party elects a neophyte partisan challenger in a context of partisan ideological polarization, and voters from the President’s own party volunteer that they voted for the challenger to signal their own discontent with his handling of the economy, and he himself will stand for re-election in 14 months, said President should be afraid.

      It’s true that with the far-higher voter turnout of the 2012 general election, the Democrats could easily retake this Congressional District (and could do the same with Scott Brown’s Senate seat in Massachusetts) simply because there are so many more Democrats in those places. The problem isn’t so much further Democratic losses down-ballot since the Democrats have already lost so much (though loss of the Senate is definitely possible and would be painful); the problem is that any indication that Democrats won’t turn out or will vote Republican rather than for President Obama due to economic frustrations makes the situation critical. Republicans are probably going to have a highly-motivated base, a well-financed presidential candidate, and a grievance narrative that weds Republican desires for limited government with non-Republicans’ anxieties about our country’s economic decline. Any regularly-voting Democrats in the New York 9th who didn’t support the party for reasons either than lack of awareness or interest in the race are a bad sign.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s