Election 2010 -- Senate & Governor Focus

As I watched the election results, one of my first reactions was to wonder why the GOP wave was manifesting itself so much more strongly in the House results than in the Senate & governor's race results. In House race after House race, GOP candidates were generally outperforming expectations -- winning all the races they were expected to win and also picking up some unexpected seats along the way. By contrast, in many of the statewide races the GOP was performing no better than expected, and in some cases seemed to be underperforming. While they were sweeping into a sizable majority in the House, Republicans did not even come close to taking control of the Senate. They fell short in a number of statewide races which they were considered at least even money to win, including the Colorado and Nevada Senate races and the Illinois and Oregon governor's races. They also underperformed their expected percentage of the vote in several other key races, including the Pennsylvania, California, and West Virginia Senate races and the Ohio and Maine governor's races. I thought this was rather strange, since close statewide races usually all trend in the same direction in wave elections.

There are a few things to remember when comparing House results to Senate and other statewide results, however. First, every 2 years all 435 House seats are up for election, while only 1/3 of the total number of Senate seats are up for election. In the House, all the newly-elected congressmen swept in during the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008 were now facing the voters in a very different political climate. By contrast, none of the newly-elected senators from 2006 and 2008 were facing the voters. Instead, the senators facing the voters were those last elected in 2004, a relatively good year for the GOP. The Republicans had a number of vulnerable seats of their own to defend (including five tough open seats), and a very limited number of pickup opportunities. Of the 19 seats that Democrats were defending this year, 13 of them were in states that have not supported a Republican presidential candidate in more than 20 years, and 14 were in states that Obama carried by more than 10 points. Thus, from the beginning the playing field was heavily stacked against the GOP in the Senate, which is why political analysts early in 2009 initially expected the Democrats to actually increase their Senate majority in the 2010 elections. Thus, the outcome of the House races gave us a much more accurate sense of the overall mood of the country than did the Senate races, and from this perspective it is impressive that the Republicans managed to pick up as many seats as they did in the Senate.

Second, heavy turnout in Democratic strongholds in the large cities enabled the Democratic candidates to stay close or even win in many statewide races, despite a strong trend toward Republicans in the suburban and rural areas of those states. This explains why, for example, Democrats were able to dominate the New York statewide races and stay so close in the Illinois Senate and governor races, the Ohio governor race, and the Pennsylvania Senate race, despite losing 4-6 House seats in EACH of those states. Obama worked hard to turn out the liberal urban vote in places like Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, and New York City in the final weeks of the campaign, and while this had no impact on the House vote (since it was heavily concentrated in a few safe Democratic districts), it helped offset GOP enthusiasm on the statewide level.

Finally, the Republicans missed some golden pickup opportunities in the Senate due to the failures and gaffes of their candidates. There seems little doubt that campaign missteps and controversies from her past made Christine O'Donnell's big loss in Delaware seem almost a foregone conclusion. Republicans were unable to find top-tier candidates to run for the top offices in New York, enabling Democrats to get over 60% of the vote in both the Senate races and the governor's race. As strongly as I supported Ken Buck in Colorado, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Joe Miller in Alaska, they all proved to be weak and gaffe-prone candidates who fumbled races that should have been clear GOP wins. This does not mean that Tea Party candidates can't win -- insurgent conservative candidates like Marco Rubio of Florida, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Rand Paul of Kentucky proved that. But what it does demonstrate is that candidate quality matters, even in a highly favorable political climate. While the Tea Party movement had a very positive impact on the election in favor of the Republicans, it needs to work harder to nominate conservatives who are articulate and capable of persuading independents and swing voters if it wants to maximize its effectiveness.

Still, despite the tough playing field and missteps by some of their candidates, conservatives have a lot of things to cheer about in the outcome of the Senate and governor races. In the Senate, Republicans succeeded in comfortably holding all of their own seats, despite having to defend five open seats in swing states (Kentucky, Missouri, Florida, New Hampshire, & Ohio) and two vulnerable incumbents of their own (in Louisiana and North Carolina). All of the new senators from the above mentioned swing states, as well as additional new ones from Utah and Kansas, should be strong conservative voices in Congress, and in several cases, the newly elected Republican senator is a significant improvement over the outgoing one. Rob Portman of Ohio and Marco Rubio of Florida will both be much more consistent conservative voices than were their predecessors, George Voinovich and Mel Martinez, respectively. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Mike Lee of Utah should also be at least marginally better than their predecessors.

In addition, all of the six new Republican senators elected in previously Democratic seats will be a marked improvement for the conservative cause. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania is a principled economic and social conservative who is light years better than both the previous occupant of the seat, Arlen Specter, and the far-left Democrat he defeated, Joe Sestak. Conservative businessman Ron Johnson defeated a deeply entrenched incumbent who is also a darling of the progressive movement, Russ Feingold. Dan Coats of Indiana, John Hoeven of North Dakota, and John Boozman of Arkansas are all genuine conservatives who replaced pseudo-conservative Democratic senators Evan Bayh, Byron Dorgan, and Blanche Lincoln, respectively. These senators talked a moderate game to their constituents back home, but were reliable votes for the Obama agenda when in Washington. The only new GOP senator who is likely to disappoint conservatives is Mark Kirk of Illinois, but even he will be a huge improvement over his predecessors Roland Burris and Barack Obama.

The governor's races are much the same story. Some races, such as those in Illinois, Oregon, Minnesota, and Connecticut (results not yet official on those last two), were agonizingly close but slipped through the fingers of Republicans. Colorado, Maryland, and California proved to be big busts, and the Republican candidate in New York lost by an embarrassing margin. Yet the Republicans did very well in most of the key swing states that will decide the 2012 presidential election. They made a huge resurgence in traditionally Democratic Michigan and Pennsylvania, winning both governor's races by sizable margins (granted, both GOP candidates are fairly moderate). More conservative GOP candidates eked out narrow wins in two other key states rich in electoral votes, Florida and Ohio, and the GOP also swept all other top offices in those two states. In Wisconsin, Scott Walker headed a strong swing to the GOP at all levels of government in the state. Republicans maintained their lock on Southern governorships, dominating races in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, and Tennessee. Of special note from this list is Nikki Haley of South Carolina, an exceptionally articulate Indian-American woman and a rising star in the conservative movement. Jan Brewer and Susana Martinez were propelled to big victories in Arizona and New Mexico partly on the strength of their commitment to get tough on illegal immigration; Martinez joins fellow Hispanic GOP governor Brian Sandoval who won big in Democratic-leaning Nevada. Only in New England did the GOP significantly underperform expectations, losing 5 of the 6 governorships in the region, all of them by close margins (with Vermont and Connecticut still not officially decided). Maine was the exception to the rule, electing Tea Party Republican Paul LePage by a narrow margin.

The Republicans' success in many of these key governor's races will stand them in good stead in the future. Successful governors have the opportunity to practically implement conservative ideas, and thus often become the leaders of the party's agenda. Successful presidents (Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush) are often former governors, and thus the current crop of Republican governors will likely provide the party with excellent presidential prospects in the future. Also, governors can provide help to their party's candidate in presidential elections and, along with state legislatures, have a great deal of influence over congressional redistricting in most states.