Election Day 2009 Brings Mixed Results
So, it’s that time of the year again: Election Day has come and gone, and its time for politicos of all stripes to analyze — and spin — the results. As an “off year” with few state races and no federal races other than special elections, 2009 leaves us with relatively little to talk about. Nevertheless, this year did offer a handful of interesting state and local elections, plus an obscure special election for Congress that brought national attention.
While some would claim otherwise, the 2009 elections were hardly a landslide for either party. Both Congressional races were won by Democrats — one in a district that hasn’t elected a Democrat in a lifetime — while both gubernatorial races, in states won last year by Obama, went to Republicans. A rich Democratic incumbent lost a governorship, but a rich independent incumbent right across the river kept the mayoralty of a city more populous than most states. Voters in one state rejected same-sex marriage but reaffirmed their approval of medical marijuana, while those in another seem likely to have approved “marriage-like” unions for same-sex couples, but only barely. And as much as Republicans would like it to be the case, the successful Republicans don’t seem to owe their wins to anti-Obama sentiment; on the other hand, neither did the “Obama factor” help the Democrats he campaigned for in high-profile, high-stakes races, even in the most Democratic part of the country.
But that doesn’t mean there are no greater implications for the races that took place yesterday. There’s something to learn from every election. And wonks like me just love analyzing elections. So let’s take a look at some of this year’s big ones:
Republicans Take Governorships in New Jersey and Virginia
The gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia were undoubtedly the most talked-about races across the nation yesterday. And here, the news for Democrats was terrible: Republicans won both races in states whose governorships had been held by Democrats for eight years, and which President Obama won last year.
Both races had some things in common: lackluster Democratic candidates and Republicans who stayed away from hot-button, culture-war social issues and crafted campaigns carefully designed to win independents. But the two losing Democrats were as different as the two states.
Virginia is a state that would vote solidly Republican were it not for urban and suburban voters in the state’s north, part of the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Essentially, northern Virginia is the northeast, while the rest of the state is the south. Northern Virginians propelled Obama to victory in the state last year, but most couldn’t get enthused about “country lawyer” Creigh Deeds, a conservative Democrat from the ultra-rural west of the state whose down-home style would mostly have appealed to conservative rural voters who would never vote for a Democrat anyway. Meanwhile, Republican Bob McDonnell, who grew up in northern Virginia, campaigned largely on economic issues, casting himself as a moderate and staying away from social issues that would alienate independents. The result: McDonnell won some of the northern Virginian counties that had been the state’s Democratic strongholds in recent years, and came away from the race with a commanding win over Deeds, garnering 58.7% of the vote to Deeds’ 41.3%.
Like McDonnell, New Jersey’s Governor-Elect Chris Christie tried his best not to touch social issues, focusing instead on the economy, taxes and corruption. In liberal, highly urban and suburban New Jersey, strongly articulated conservative stances on issues like abortion and gay rights would have alienated even more voters than in Virginia, at least part of which is still in the conservative south. But his opponent, Governor Jon Corzine, was very different from Creigh Deeds. Despite his origins in small-town Illinois, the one-time Goldman Sachs chairman certainly lacked Deeds’ “country bumpkin” image. Unfortunately, Corzine came off as distant and uninspiring. The terrible state of the economy and New Jersey’s chronic problems of astronomical taxes and rampant corruption combined with Corzine’s lack of personal likability to make him a very easy target for voters’ anger about the terrible state of the state, and his attempts to portray Christie as a dangerous ideologue with close ties to George W. Bush seemed not to stick. (This was a typically dirty New Jersey campaign, with allegations flying that Corzine’s campaign even made fun of the weight of his corpulent opponent.) Even the very public support of President Obama in this reliably Democratic state could not save the incumbent, whose campaign seemed to consist of, “I’m not doing as bad a job as you think — really! And that other guy will be even worse!” It was still a close race, Christie taking 48.8% of the vote to Corzine’s 44.5% and independent Chris Daggett’s 5.8%, but ultimately New Jersey voters decided to axe an incumbent seen by many as disconnected, ineffective and even duplicitous in favor of someone who at least might do better.
Republicans, of course, would like to portray these races as manifestations of a backlash against President Obama, but polls show that voters were largely focused on local issues and that for most President was not a major factor in their decisions. What they do show is that Republicans can still win, at least on a state level, if they stay away from controversial social issues and stick to economics, where their message still resonates with many.
Bloomberg Wins in NYC — Barely
For many (certainly, for me) the surprise of the night was the slimness of the margin by which Mike Bloomberg won his third term as Mayor of New York City. In an election with low turnout, Bloomberg took only 50.6% of the vote to Comptroller Bill Thompson’s 46%.
Given the dynamics of the campaign, Thompson did better than anyone could have reasonably expected. The billionaire Bloomberg had essentially unlimited resources, and did not hesitate to use them, setting spending records. Against the huge financial resources and impressive organization of the Bloomberg campaign, Thompson, an earnest but bland candidate who largely criticized Bloomberg rather than advancing his own agenda, and who seemed to have little coherent vision for how the city should change, should have fared terribly. But no small number of voters were angry with Bloomberg for getting the City Council to overturn term limit laws that the voters themselves had enacted in referenda, and the enormous amounts of his personal wealth left a bitter taste with many as well. According to exit polls, those for whom these two factors had an effect went overwhelmingly for Thompson, perhaps helping to account for his surprisingly good performance. But while a substantial minority did care about these issues, most New Yorkers did not — and those voters by and large went for Bloomberg.
That said, it may perplex many that New York, a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a huge margin, will not have had a Democratic mayor in two decades by the time Bloomberg’s third term expires in 2014. Bloomberg is an independent now, but he ran on the Republican ballot line and was formerly a Republican (and, to be fair, a Democrat before that). But while most voters who considered Bloomberg a Republican voted for Thompson, the largest number of voters considered him an independent, and that group broke overwhelmingly for Bloomberg.
Ultimately, the main reason that Bloomberg won is that most New Yorkers are fairly satisfied with him. An astounding 70% of voters polled said they approved of the job Bloomberg was doing, even though 25% of those voters went for Thompson. Thompson won voters whose biggest issue was housing, but Bloomberg won on the three issues the largest numbers of voters identified as most important to them: the economy, education and crime. The economy in New York, as with most everywhere, is not good (and most voters said so), but it seems voters didn’t blame Bloomberg, and had little confidence that Thompson could do better or even as well. And Bloomberg won big on education and especially crime (though a small majority of parents of public-school students went for Thompson).
But perhaps most importantly of all, those who said they voted in favor of a candidate for mayor mostly voted for Bloomberg. Those who said they voted against the other candidate went overwhelmingly for Thompson. Thompson, perhaps, was unable to win because he didn’t convince New Yorkers why he should be mayor, and while his relatively strong performance indicates that many are not happy with Bloomberg, that discontent simply did not run deep enough for New Yorkers to jump ship en masse to a candidate who did not give them enough reasons to favor him.
NY-23: Conservatives Reach Too Far
Parts of New York’s 23rd Congressional District, in the very rural far north of the state, haven’t elected a Democrat since 1851. (No, that’s not a typo; the district’s largest city, Watertown, hasn’t been represented by a Democrat for 158 years. The Republican Party didn’t even exist in 1851; back then, the Democrats were opposed by the Whigs!) But the Republican nominee for this seat’s special election, Dede Scozzafava, chosen by New York Republicans for her broad appeal, was deemed by many national Republicans to be “too liberal.” Enough national Republicans, lead by Sarah Palin, endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman and attacked Scozzafava that the Republican dropped out of the race, allowing the Democrat, Bill Owens, to win what should have been a very safe Republican seat.
The lesson here is pretty simple: those who demand absolute ideological purity should be prepared to lose often. Imagine if the Republican candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey ran explicitly ideological, hard-right campaigns….
Maine Voters Like Pot Better than Gays; Washington Voters Seem to Have Approved “Marriage-Like” Partnerships
I like Maine. Or at least I used to. It’s got a nice coastline, produces some really nice boats and mail-order clothing, and McDonald’s sells lobster there, which is at least good for a laugh. Unfortunately, 52.8% of Maine’s voters decided their gay and lesbian neighbors just don’t deserve the same rights as everyone else, which is no laughing matter and doesn’t leave me with very warm feelings toward the state. This continues same-sex marriage’s unbroken record of being rejected every time it has come up for a popular referendum — now in 31 states. Worse, this scourge has now entered the northeast, the region hitherto most friendly to same-sex marriage, and for the first time, voters have overturned their elected legislators’ decision to grant equality. (On the other hand, unlike the other 30 referenda, Maine’s didn’t take the form of a constitutional amendment. But that is not much consolation.)
On the other hand, 58.7% of Maine voters did decide to expand the legal usage of medical marijuana. That’s nice; maybe I can get some to make me feel less depressed about the bigotry of the majority of Maine voters and its absurd political system that makes the rights of minorities subject to the whims of the majority.
Meanwhile, voters in the State of Washington appear to have likely approved, by a slim margin, a measure establishing domestic partnerships that would be like marriages, except not. Right now it’s still too close to call, but while I hope the measure does pass, the fact that the voting is so close (currently 51.6% in favor), and that if it does pass, it will still create a “separate and unequal” status for same-sex couples means that still wouldn’t be much of an occasion for celebration.
Long Island: No Real Winners
And at last, we turn to the dull but important business of local Long Island politics. Or this year, maybe not so dull.
Long Island, where high taxes and corruption are chronic problems, looks very similar politically to that other home of NYC’s inner suburbs, New Jersey, but its voters don’t have an entire state government to play with. Instead, similar politics play out on a local level. (New York’s Westchester County, where most of the remaining inner suburbs are located, has similar problems and politics to those of Long Island and New Jersey, and Republicans made big gains there this year.)
Nearly every office in Nassau County was up for election this year, and here voters seemed evenly split on who they want to run the county — or at least those who cared enough to vote, with low turnout signaling a general feeling of apathetic discontent. In spite of, or perhaps because of this low turnout, Election 2009 has turned out to be quite a spectacle in Nassau: more than 24 hours after polls closed, Democratic County Executive Tom Suozzi still doesn’t know whether he’ll keep his job! Right now he appears to have defeated Republican challenger Ed Mangano by an astonishing 237 votes out of more than 245,000, but it could be weeks before a winner is declared. It’s Bush-Gore, Long Island Edition.
It’s not just Suozzi on whom voters were evenly divided; Democratic Comptroller Howard Weitzman lost to Republican challenger George Maragos by 576 votes out of over 230,000 cast. And the County Legislature has been re-taken by Republicans, raising the prospect of governmental gridlock with the Executive and Legislature constantly at odds. Yet District Attorney Kathleen Rice, a Democrat, won by a respectable margin; so did County Clerk Maureen O’Connell, a Republican. Town and city races were mostly won by incumbents of both parties. If anything, Nassau voters don’t seem to care, and those who do are divided astonishingly evenly in what was, when I was growing up there (and my parents before me!), an impenetrable Republican fortress.
Things in Suffolk County were not so edge-of-the-seat exciting. There were no contested county-wide offices; the incumbent District Attorney and Sheriff (Democrats) and Treasurer (a Republican) all ran uncontested. Democrats will keep control of the County Legislature. But town elections show that, like their neighbors in Nassau, Suffolk’s voters are mostly apathetic, and those who aren’t are divided. In the largest town, Brookhaven (home of Stony Brook), Democratic incumbent Mark Lesko, who in March won a special election to replace fellow Democrat and now State Senator Brian Foley, won his first full term as Town Supervisor. But every incumbent on the Town Council will remain, giving Republicans a majority that will continue to encumber Lesko’s ability to carry out his agenda. In other towns the picture is much the same with, as in Nassau County, incumbents largely winning in this low-turnout election, though Democrats picked up the position of Town Supervisor in Southampton, and lost it to Republicans in East Hampton and Riverhead.
So the picture on Long Island is pretty glum: Democrats’ headway in taking over this one-time Republican stronghold seems to have ended in a stalemate with many residents just sitting on the sidelines.
Maybe off-year elections aren’t that boring after all.










11 Comments
2009-11-05
03:25:17
Brian Beedenbender lost too. There goes one of the best names in the legislature.
2009-11-05
06:38:22
you know i read this article and laugh how pot is chosen over gays. i wish that was the biggest concern when i live seeing racism everyday in my small little town. i pray that one day tolerance will prevail and the ideology of campaigns wont be what fuels them but the character of a man even if he does not conform entirely to his party. of course that could be a fairy tale but i rather people leave the merit of a man to his actions and not the color of his skin or his preference in sexuality but that it goes both ways for liberals and republicans alike. it seems one complains of what the other does but when given the chance they feel they must correct society and make them conform to their ideas vs being the better person and doing it right. otherwise your no different than those u were against to begin with.
2009-11-05
07:45:47
Obviously this a liberal run site! Perhaps the voice of the majority should be heard a little more often when issues are considered. Where in the constitution does it say that gay is ok or that the hard working employed have to pay for medical insurance for those that have no ambition to work. Democrats make it so easy for the lazy to survive and take that from someone that works around inner city individuals all day every day.
2009-11-05
12:14:29
@ Brian - Obviously, you must be a republican, because only someone narrow-minded would think that everyone unemployed is lazy. Since unemployment is over 10%, we must be a really lazy country; I mean, all those people who don't want to work or even bother finding a job...what a sharp insight you offer to this troubling situation!!!
And you're right...it's not the Constitution that says "All men are created equal"; it was the Declaration of Independence. You know, the document that inspired our ancestors to create a framework of government where anyone can rise to the top...gay or otherwise.
2009-11-05
13:01:27
Yes brian this is indeed a liberal run site. We are very proud to bring you the progressive perspective and we make no efforts to hide it. Now on to your post. 1) The voice of the majority, what are you talking about? I would like to remind you that the last time we had a nationwide election the voice of the majority decisively voted for the liberal candidate. 2) Characterizing those without insurance as those who are lazy is foolish because the ranks of the uninsured include the employed who simply do not have enough money to keep up with exploding premiums and those who cannot get insurance based on pre-existing conditions or medical history.3) Your constitutional argument is also flawed because the United States Constitution allows for the "promotion of the general welfare" and the power to tax and spend not to mention the "necessary and proper" clause which would justify Healthcare reform. Secondly as to gay rights there is an interesting Amendment known as the Fourteenth, Look it up. Finally a few fun questions for strict constructionists of yourself. Should we abolish the airforce, nothing in the constitution acknowleges that only "land and naval" forces. Should we give back the Louisiana purchase, nothing in the constitution promotes this, should the Supreme Court be stripped of it's self established power(Marbury vs Madison) to establish the constitutionality of laws since the constitution does not grant it this power? I urge you to THiNK about these questions. Have a nice day.
2009-11-05
15:26:08
Brian,
Your question regarding the Constitution is patently flawed. Where in the Constitution does it state that DUI should be a criminal offense, that driving while on a cell phone should be illeagal, that animals should have rights (or even Rights groups), or that women should be allowed to vote? Wait, about that last one, it didn't say it in the original Constitution, but someone figured out that the original document left out a few rights that the founding fathers didn't foresee. Amendments. There are quite a few. You do realize that, don't you?
The comment about the lazy versus the hard-working lacks intellectual basis as well. There are members of this society that are paid quite well for a minimum amount of effort, and there are those that are compensated poorly for extremely challenging tasks. Professional golfers earn millions. Office clerks, who work 45-50 hours in a standard week, earn significantly less. There's just no correlation between energy expended and income earned. This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that not all of the unemployed and uninsured are lazy, or lack ambition. Only an idiot would believe that there is a 1-to-1 relationship between the number of jobs and the number of people in the workforce. Do you believe that? Every seen a game of musical chairs being played? The same concept applies.
Your post contains far more vitriol than facts. I guess that's what's great about the Constitution. Even narrow-minded opinions can be stated. This is mine.
2009-11-05
16:37:18
Brian,
Your question regarding the Constitution is patently flawed. Where in the Constitution does it state that DUI should be a criminal offense, that driving while using a cell phone should be illegal, that animals should have rights (or even Rights groups), or that women should be allowed to vote? Wait, about that last one, it didn't say it in the original Constitution, but someone figured out that the original document left out a few rights that the founding fathers didn't foresee. Amendments. There are quite a few. You do realize that, don't you?
The comment regarding the "lazy" versus the "hard-working" lacks intellectual basis as well. There are members of this society that are paid quite well for a minimum amount of effort, and there are those that are compensated poorly for extremely challenging tasks. Professional golfers earn millions. Office clerks, who work 45-50 hours in a standard week, earn significantly less. There's just no correlation between energy expended and income earned. This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that not all of the unemployed and uninsured are lazy, or lack ambition. Only an idiot would believe that there is a 1-to-1 relationship between the number of jobs and the number of people in the workforce. Do you believe that? Every seen a game of musical chairs being played? The same concept applies.
Your post contains far more vitriol than facts. I guess that's what's great about the Constitution. Even narrow-minded opinions can be stated. This is mine.
2009-11-07
10:41:38
No, Dominic, it is YOUR reasoning that is flawed, regarding the constitutionality of a Federal takeover of health care (in point 3 of your message).
Firstly, the "necessary and proper" clause appears at the end of list of powers granted to the Congress, and it explicitly refers to "the foregoing powers"and applies ONLY to the specific powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. It does NOT mean that Congress itself may decide whatever it thinks is "necessary and proper" (which would be defined as absolute tyranny -- which is exactly what was meant to be prohibited by having a list of enumerated powers).
Secondly, the "General Welfare" clause is NOT a grant of power. It appears in the preamble as one of the reasons for the Constitution, not as a provision of it.
I also note that the preamble also lists other reasons, such as: "to insure the domestic tranquility" -- but that does not mean the Federal government has the power to force people to smoke pot. (Nor does it give the Feds the power to outlaw it, either!) The preamble says that, in order to achieve such goal, we the people, "do ordain and establish this Constitution". The Constitution then goes on to enumerate the powers; the Bill of Rights (Tenth Amendment) makes clear that there are no further Federal powers, beyond those enumerated, and reserves everything else to the people and/or the States.
When quoting the Constitution, please do not cherry-pick and quote out of context -- even tho that would be the only way to argue that Congress actually has the right to control health care (or pot).
The Congress, which was created by the Constitution, has no right to EXIST if it tries to exceed the powers given it by its creator -- in order to trample on the rights of the people!
Yours, in Liberty,
-/bam/
Bruce Alan Martin
("Long Island Liberty, with BAM"
Tuesdays at noon, on WUSB 90.1 FM Stony Brook)
2009-11-10
02:39:46
lol brian lets talk easy for republicans, shout loud about Mexican taking jobs, say u love your country and if anyone dressages then they arn't true american, leave everything to the government of bureaucrat who say "were fine" when they are slitting everyones throats who doest make enough to support their family even though they have 2-3 jobs and a BA from a NOTABLE college. Damn gays using the bible as a shield without any tolerance to other religions unless they stay silent. yep easy street us democrats/liberals/independents were just ignorant people right? I'm not saying Obama is the cure all but at least he doesn't feed the american people lies and some sugar coated topping over what he's accomplished. doesn't use fear to keep people from speaking their mind and feeling we need him in office to protect us. so lets talk about someone trying to make a difference with healthcare cause he see's what we have isn't working... oh wait the government is trying to control america now? who bailed out all these banks and car manufacturers? it wasn't a democrat. talk is easy and so is criticism but to take action is the merit we need in this country. I've written memorials and lobbied and wrote bill's and lobbied and passed them into law. I am not the most sophisticated man on this planet or this message board. however i don't stand back and leave my name on some petition thinking i did some part for america n shout my values n try to shove them down the throats of others. this is what we got and it will only be what we make of it. at least we now have a few people we can believe in what they do is on them. but its better than having a government that we cant trust.
2009-11-10
02:41:39
lol not dressages bloody spell check! Disagrees
2009-11-10
15:05:14
BAM what amuses me about your argument is how you start out refuting a point I did not make notably your statement that my reasoning is flawed when it comes to the constitutionality of a Federal takeover of healthcare. First off, I am NOT in support of a Federal takeover of healthcare so your point is moot. I am in support of Health Insurance reform as expounded in bills such as HR 3200 and HR 3962 NEITHER OF WHICH REPRESENT a "Federal takeover of Healthcare." Now as to the constitutionality of Healthcare reform as it relates to the elastic clause, yes it would be constitutional. The elastic clause allows quite a bit of leverage when it comes to application of enumerated powers. Under the elastic clause Congress can use it's ENUMERATED powers to "lay and collect taxes and duties, imposts and excises, to pay for debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States... and the Commerce Clause to execute healthcare reform. Of course this requires a liberal rather than strict constructionist view of the Constitution which is more than supported by Supreme Court precedent.(examples are McCullough vs Maryland and South Dakota vs Dole.) Cherry picking the constitution, I think not.
Thank You
Dominic La Maison
P.S- on an off note I like your bit of equivocation on the meaning of Domestic Tranquility, I guess your argument would not be complete without another logical fallacy ;)