Editor: Mark Schone
Updated: Today
Topic:

2009 Elections

Are today's elections a referendum on Obama?

Voters go to the polls Tuesday for several closely watched elections. What will the results mean?

It's not an even-numbered year, but it is the first Tuesday in November, and here in the U.S., that means Election Day. Not many races are on the ballot today, and turnout is bound to be low for almost all of them, but there are a few that will have a real impact on local politics -- perhaps even nationally as well. Certainly, the results will be analyzed to death as pundits ponder the question of what they mean about President Obama.

We'll have coverage here in War Room tonight, of course, but first, here's a little preview of the day's big races, and what you should know about whether this really will be a referendum on the president.

The races everyone will be watching:

  • New Jersey gubernatorial: Incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, takes on challenger Chris Christie, the former U.S. attorney. Independent Chris Daggett, who's basically a moderate Republican, may end up playing spoiler -- Corzine needs Daggett to take a chunk out of Christie's hide to have any chance of victory.
  • Virginia gubernatorial: Incumbent Gov. Tim Kaine, also the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, can't run again -- Virginia limits its governors to a single term. Democrat Creigh Deeds is trying to hold the seat for his party, but Republican Robert McDonnell has jumped out to a double-digit lead in the polls. If Deeds, by some miracle, manages to win, it'd be the biggest upset since Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson.
  • Special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District: Voters are electing a replacement for Republican John McHugh, whom Obama made secretary of the Army. The district's been in GOP hands since the time when upstate New York also hosted the Garden of Eden, but there's no Republican candidate in the race anymore. Dede Scozzafava, who faced concerted opposition from conservative activists -- and eventually, the conservative establishment -- dropped out over the weekend, and later endorsed Democrat Bill Owens. Third-party candidate Doug Hoffman is the conservative favorite, and now essentially the Republican as well; polls show him in the lead.
  • Maine referendum on same-sex marriage: The state's Legislature, with the blessing of the governor, legalized same-sex weddings earlier this year. Now voters get a chance to uphold that decision -- or repeal it. The race is too close to call; turnout will likely be the deciding factor.
  • New York City mayoral: Incumbent Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a former Republican who became an independent, has enough clout and enough money -- mostly money -- that he was able to get the City Council to change a law that limited him to two terms. Now he's running again, against Democrat Bill Thompson. Bloomberg's the favorite in the polls and of the establishment; Thompson could barely even force a grudging endorsement from Obama. If Thompson, by some miracle, manages to win, it'd be the biggest upset since Evander Holyfield beat Mike Tyson.

There are a bunch of other elections out there. That includes another special congressional election, this one in California, which the Democratic candidate, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, is expected to walk away with. There are also mayoral races in Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, Houston and Miami, among others.

But the races listed above are the ones that will capture the attention of political observers around the country. And there will be, inevitably, many postmortems tonight and tomorrow about the results, and many pundits will be ready to tell you how each election reflected on Obama.

The general consensus on the right is that McDonnell's expected victory in Virginia, as well as the possible win by Christie in New Jersey -- or even a very close race there -- show that voters aren't happy about Obama's performance or Democratic plans for healthcare reform, and that the Republican Party is ready to make a comeback. Conservatives are also slamming the mainstream media already, saying the press is deliberately downplaying the Obama effect on the election to protect him and that the races really will reflect opinion about the president rather than just local issues and the candidates directly at issue.

For the most part, though, that's not true: In New Jersey and Virginia, at least, it's about the candidates.

In Virginia, for instance, Deeds has become a laughingstock, with even political reporters openly mocking his ineptitude. Moreover, though Obama did manage a victory in Virginia last year, he did so at a time when turnout was high -- even higher than normal, in fact, because of his presence on the ticket. Now it's an off-year, which meant a big leg up for the Republicans from the beginning. And, to add a little objective data to the mix, in a recent poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News, 70 percent of respondents said their feelings about the president don't affect their vote in this election. Fifteen percent did say their vote was about expressing opposition to Obama, but 14 percent said they'd be voting Deeds to show their support for Obama.

In New Jersey, Corzine's been unpopular for some time, and it's only because of Republican Christie's own troubles and the gift of an independent who's polling at 10 percent that the incumbent is still in the race. Don't let the Democratic spin fool you, either -- if Corzine wins, various surrogates will rush to give Obama the credit. He doesn't deserve it. Christie's own troubles will be the cause of his downfall, if it does happen. (Full disclosure: Democrats are also sending around early spin playing down the idea that Obama is at issue in the races in both Jersey and Virginia. In this case, that spin has the added virtue of being accurate.)

That doesn't mean the idea that Obama plays at least some role should be dismissed out of hand. Perhaps the biggest thing to consider is how energized the president has made the Republican base. That's very important when it comes to close elections, and the effect is likely to persist through the midterms in 2010, when the president won't be on the ticket to motivate his own supporters.

The most interesting thing to watch tonight, then, the one race that really could have serious national implications, is the congressional election in upstate New York. It's far too early to say what kind of impact the various possible outcomes could have, but there are some possibilities to consider: Will a Hoffman victory turn the GOP further to the right, and give activists the muscle to push out any moderate candidates next year? On the other side of the coin, would a Hoffman loss marginalize those same activists? If Hoffman wins and the base becomes even more powerful in the Republican Party, is that necessarily a bad thing? Those are the questions that could affect American politics for years to come.

Candidate flip, president flop

Obama crushes a medication policy he'd vowed to endorse. Such bogus election-year promises undermine democracy
AP
President Obama speaks about healthcare reform Tuesday. With him, from left, are, Sens. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Every now and then, an insider inadvertently exposes the hideous rationalizations that run the American political grotesquerie. The best known of these statements are memorialized on TV as "gaffes." But the ones that never become famous tend to reveal the ugliest assumptions of all.

Case in point is the comment the pharmaceutical industry recently let fly in the Washington Post. The newspaper this week examined how the Obama administration crushed legislation that would have allowed Americans to purchase lower-priced FDA-approved medicines from abroad -- legislation that President Obama promised to support as a presidential candidate; legislation that would have reduced drug profiteering and saved the government and consumers $100 billion.

"It's about being a candidate as opposed to being president," said the drug industry's top lobbyist in defense of Obama's flip-flop.

This explanation is common among politicos -- we last heard it when the New York Times' John Harwood quoted an administration aide attacking those demanding Obama fulfill his campaign pledges. Disenchanted activists, said the White House, "need to take off [their] pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated."

These "candidate vs. president" idioms are standard among Beltway elites who belong to what New York University's Jay Rosen calls "the Church of the Savvy." Their catechism says that anyone demanding a president deliver on campaign promises is naive because, allegedly, there is an inherent difference between what a candidate can tell voters and what that candidate can support as president. Those rejecting this "savvy" interpretation are therefore lambasted as petulant children who refuse to "take off their pajamas" and "get dressed."

It's a canard, of course -- one sculpted to excuse selling out. And there are two huge problems with it.

First, ignoring presidents' broken promises defiles our republican democracy. In America, we only get to choose presidents every four years, meaning we must rely on campaign promises as metrics for electoral choices. But if the entire idea of the campaign promise becomes an assumed joke, then we have no metrics by which to elect leaders.

Second, an obvious but taboo truth: There are almost no substantive reasons candidates cannot champion their election-year promises once in office. These pledges are made through deliberative processes. Candidates shouldn't make them if they're not serious about follow-through -- and it's not unreasonable to ask officeholders to at least try to honor the campaign commitments that informed voters' electoral decisions. That's especially true on something like drug importation, whose opposition is about enlarging profits, not, as Obama aides argue, about protecting consumer safety.

Drug companies already manufacture medicines in the developing world so as to evade U.S. labor, environmental and safety regulations. They then legally import those products for sale to Americans at inflated prices. The new bill would have merely let wholesalers, not just manufacturers, import medicines -- but at the lower prices the manufacturers concurrently sell those medicines abroad. Such wholesale importation is permitted throughout Europe and the rest of the industrialized world. So two questions: If the administration actually believes importation is unsafe, why isn't it banning current drug imports? And if the administration specifically insists wholesale importation is unsafe, then where are all the dead Europeans?

Certainly, some "candidate vs. president" differences might justify rare instances of dishonesty. A president might momentarily dissemble to, say, protect soldiers on the battlefield.

But fibbing for the public good is different than breaking promises for private gain. In the latter cases, "candidate vs. president" apologias are non sequiturs. They justify nothing -- and they clearly do not rationalize an importation U-turn by Obama designed only to protect a drug cartel.

That kind of power-coddling reversal insults voters, and absolving such an insult isn't savvy -- it betrays our nation's founding principles.

Hoffman concedes NY-23 race -- again

The conservative favorite had retracted his concession, but won't challenge the final results

Last week, third-party candidate and eventual Republican favorite Doug Hoffman announced that he was retracting the concession he'd made on election night. The right's favorite bogeyman, ACORN, had stolen the special Congressional election and thus New York's 23rd district from him, Hoffman said.

But as absentee ballots were tallied, it quickly became clear that Hoffman had no shot at victory in the initial count, and probably couldn't win a challenge, either. So on Tuesday he conceded one last time.

In a statement noticeably free of the accusations of theft and fraud that had accompanied his un-concession, Hoffman said:

Yesterday, the remaining ballots were counted in the 23rd Congressional District special election. The results re-affirm the fact that Bill Owens won.

Since, the morning of November 4th, many of my supporters have asked me to challenge the outcome of this race. Their concerns centered on the veracity of the new voting machines used, for the first time, in the majority of the eleven counties that make up the Congressional District. Over the past three weeks, we nearly cut Bill Owens' lead in half. Sadly, that is not enough.

The shift in support since election night highlights one fact; the Boards of Elections, both state and county, need to work closely to ensure the seamless use of these machines in the 2010 statewide and midterm elections.

I would like to thank my supporters for everything they did over the past four months. They proved that average Americans can stand up and make their voices heard, all the way from Watertown to Washington. They proved that the voters are sick and tired of wasteful government spending, high taxes and an ever growing deficit. And most importantly, that when it comes to politics: principles do matter.

While we may have lost the election, this race proved that Americans are sick and tired of the status quo in both Albany and Washington.

Hoffman decision on election challenge this weekend

Victory's out of reach for now, but the conservative candidate may try to overturn the results

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate who lost a close race in a special election for an upstate New York Congressional seat earlier this month, has already retracted the concession he made on election night. Now, though, he has to decide whether he'll try to challenge Democrat Bill Owens' win in court.

A spokesman for Hoffman, Rob Ryan, says Hoffman will be making that decision "over the weekend," according to CQ Politics' Emily Cadei.

Over the past two days, after Hoffman officially unconceded, victory in the current count has become mathematically impossible for him. The third-party candidate had hoped to gain on Owens during the tally of absentee ballots, but as the count stands now, it's actually Owens who's picked up a net of 61 votes during the process.

There was some measure of hope for Hoffman's supporters on Thursday, though, due to a report in a local publication that a virus had affected voting machines. An election watchdog has debunked that claim, however.

How the GOP got its groove back

Republicans look ahead to 2010, without bothering to figure out whether they've solved their problems first
AP
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, left, and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour

CEDAR CREEK, Texas -- Finding the epicenter of the looming Republican comeback is pretty easy, at least this week. As it happens, you can drive there from Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in less than 30 minutes, and with only two turns. Once you get to the massive golf and spa complex with signs warning pedestrians and bicyclists to stay off the road, you're in the right place.

Here at a fancy resort on the outskirts of Austin, Republican governors and the corporate sponsors who love them gathered to celebrate their recent victories and look forward to what -- they're quite sure -- will be many more to come. "I was chairman of the party 16 years ago when we were last similarly situated," said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, who was chairman of the Republican National Committee when the GOP swept to control of Congress in the 1994 elections. "This feels better this early than it did then."

Win a couple of odd-year gubernatorial contests, it turns out, and the future suddenly looks a lot brighter. Bright enough, in fact, that the RGA had no problem Thursday morning showing attendees a "Saturday Night Live" clip spoofing Fox News Channel's coverage of the 2009 elections. The point of the skit was that the GOP and its friends at Fox were delusional, giddily declaring the 2008 elections overturned on the basis of two statewide elections with low turnout -- which the speakers at the RGA conference then proceeded to come close to doing themselves. It wasn't clear how intentional the irony was.

"For all the hype, [2008] was not a transitional campaign, it was not a transitional year," GOP pollster Ed Goeas said at a panel about the 2010 elections, after promising to pick apart some of the "many" myths about President Obama's victory a year ago. "After $700 million being spent by the Obama campaign, it was not a new electorate."

That was, in essence, the message of the RGA conference: So what if the only thing voters like less than the Democrats in Congress might be the Republicans in Congress? Who cares if the GOP has been reduced to a rump minority in the House and Senate, left on the sidelines with not much more to do than root for Democrats to fight among themselves? In politics, what matters is momentum, and right now, Republicans -- and quite a few Democrats, especially in private -- think they have it.

So Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie, the winners in Virginia and New Jersey a few weeks ago, were hailed as the heralds of a new GOP majority -- a majority of governors, granted, which doesn't really mean anything in terms of being able to pass legislation or implement policy on a national scale, but a majority nonetheless. (Both winning candidates demurred when asked whether Obama fatigue had helped them to the statehouse; it was local issues that won the day, they insisted.) No one mentioned that the party in the White House almost always loses the New Jersey and Virginia elections the year after a presidential race.

And Barbour came armed with a new poll by Zogby International that showed Obama's approval ratings and reelection numbers were perilously low in states with competitive gubernatorial races on tap for next year. Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle said there was no reason the GOP shouldn't aim to win every single state. "There's no state that we can't win," she said. "Talking to a Republican from Hawaii -- the first Republican elected in 40 years -- I'm telling you, we could win in every state."

But the most telling numbers may have been the ones Barbour touted a little later, in a press conference, after he'd shared them with governors and Republican loyalists Thursday morning. Forget the polling; what really got the RGA excited was another kind of stat. "We spent $23 million in 2006," Barbour said. "We're going to start 2010 with $25 million in the bank."

Raising and spending money is, after all, the main thing a group like the RGA does. Which is why the big "Victory Barbecue" on Wednesday night was sponsored by the Corrections Corporation of America, whose Web site proclaims it's "the private corrections management provider of choice for federal, state and local agencies." And why Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels apologized to "the vendors in the room" for boasting of his love of bidding state contracts out using reverse auctions. Everywhere you looked, corporate sponsors popped up. A mining company, an information technology company and a supply chain logistics company teamed up with CCA and the liquor lobby to sponsor a bash at Cindy's Gone Hog Wild, a bar down the road from the conference resort. A "trunk show and fashion boutique" was set up in one hallway Thursday afternoon, so attendees could take a break from hearing about the Obama administration's nefarious healthcare reform plans to get a little shopping in. (The governors, meanwhile, headed out for some skeet and trap shooting on the resort's grounds.)

That's not to say Democrats will have it easy next year, especially if the economy doesn't recover faster. Incumbents in either party are likely to struggle; fairly heavy losses in the House and Senate are probably on the horizon, though Democrats took so many seats in 2006 and 2008 that their majority in both houses is likely safe. Midterm elections almost never bring good news for new presidents, just like the New Jersey and Virginia results.

But the GOP crowing in Texas this week doesn't mean Republicans have it all figured out again, either. The candidates on the Republican line in major races next year may include Ohio's John Kasich, who was the House Budget Committee chairman after the 1994 elections; New York's Rick Lazio, who tried, and failed, to beat Hillary Clinton for the Senate in 2000; and Iowa's Terry Branstad, whom you may have heard of because he already served as governor of the state from 1983 to 1999. That lineup doesn't exactly scream out "new and improved," no matter how much Barbour talked up the GOP comeback.

"One of the things that really does separate this Republican Party from the Republican Party of 1993 is that this one is utterly devoid of ideas," said Nathan Daschle, the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, the RGA's counterpart. "You can say a lot of things about Newt Gingrich, you can say a lot of things about the Republican Revolution; one thing you can't say is that it lacked some kind of ideological base or agenda."

By contrast, Barbour boasted Wednesday that Republicans in New Jersey voted for a moderate, Christie, and in Virginia, they voted for a conservative, McDonnell. The main thing they had in common was their party label. As GOP governors gathered to bash the healthcare reform bill Thursday morning, they ran through the same litany of Republican "solutions" to the problem that their comrades in Washington have offered for months -- tort reform, insurance portability, tax credits. Their most famous ex-governor, meanwhile, was running around on a book tour, talking mostly to tea party types who won't exactly help win swing voters over. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who's supposed to be a rising star in the party and is planning a run for president in 2012, stuck to bland pronouncements as he moderated a domestic policy panel on Wednesday. "Citizens are being asked to live on the same amount of money, or less, than they did last year," he said. "They think it's reasonable that government should tighten its belt as well." No one at the conference could open his or her mouth without declaring the states to be "the laboratories of democracy" -- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal must have said at least a half-dozen times that unlike Washington, states can't print their own money. It was not, all in all, a rousing display.

What next year's elections may offer increasingly alienated voters, then, could be a choice between the Democrats, complete with their infighting and chaotic majorities -- who may not have done enough yet to fix the problems that they confronted upon walking into office -- and the Republicans -- who were the ones who helped mess things up in the first place. If the RGA gathering was any evidence, though, the GOP is aiming to win that choice by default. A win, after all, is still a win.

Victory slips from Hoffman's grasp again -- blame ACORN!

It's still possible the conservative could challenge the results of a special election, but for now, he's lost

Quick! Someone look for ACORN operatives; check around every corner, under every cushion, down every alley -- they must be somewhere, because Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman now has no chance of winning the special Congressional election held in upstate New York earlier this month without a recount.

Late Wednesday, Hoffman retracted his concession, charging ACORN and other nefarious actors with having stolen the election from him. He'd gotten a glimmer of hope because of corrected vote totals that showed Democrat Bill Owens with a smaller margin of victory than was originally reported, and because absentee ballots hadn't yet been counted.

But Hoffman's chances of prevailing, even after the new numbers were in, were always slim. And on Thursday, victory for the conservative favorite officially became mathematically impossible: With 3,072 absentee ballots remaining uncounted, Owens led by 3,105 votes.

Hoffman's campaign hasn't ruled out the idea of challenging the results, though even his spokesman has always sounded skeptical about the idea of a comeback win.

Hoffman retracts concession, says ACORN stole election

The conservative candidate worries about "scheming behind closed doors"

The fervor in conservative ranks for an unknown candidate running in a special Congressional election in upstate New York was never really about Doug Hoffman the man, at least not as much as it was about Doug Hoffman, expression of the right's id. Who he actually was, what he actually believed and whether he had any real political skills, these were secondary questions at best, after what really mattered: He was more conservative than Dede Scozzafava, the official Republican candidate.

Hoffman and his supporters did succeed in pushing Scozzafava out of the race just days before the election was held, but on Election Day, it all seemed to be for naught, as Hoffman lost to Democrat Bill Owens.

But since then, it's become clear that vote totals in some parts of the district weren't reported accurately the night of the election, and Owens' margin of victory shrunk as a result. So now, after having been pressed by Glenn Beck, Hoffman has another chance to be that raw expression of conservative id.

In a message to supporters released Wednesday night, Hoffman officially withdrew his concession, saying he'd now work to stop the election from being stolen by a collection of nefarious figures.

An excerpt:

As evidence surfaces, we find out that reported results from election night were far from accurate. ACORN and the unions did their best to try and sway the results to Obamacare supporter Bill Owens.

I was forced to concede after receiving two pieces of grim news - - down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night - and barely won my stronghold in Oswego County. On Election Night, the information we received was far different from what we received this week!

Rest assured, they will not succeed, and I am therefore revoking my statement of concession.

That is why I am writing you today. Recent developments leave me to wonder who is scheming behind closed doors, twisting arms and stealing elections from the voters of NY-23.

I'm sure you are as dismayed as I am to learn of the mischief that took place in Oswego and neighboring counties. We know this would not be the first time for the ACORN faithful to tamper with democracy.

This is fanciful, to put it mildly. First of all, despite the corrected vote totals, it appears clear that Hoffman can't win, even after all absentee ballots have been tallied. And the accusation that ACORN is somehow behind the vote counting -- that it is working behind the scenes at election boards is just ludicrous.

The impulse on the right to see ACORN as responsible for every evil in the world has now apparently gone so far that this accusation doesn't even relate to the one usually leveled at the group, that it's working to register non-existent voters in order to cast fraudulent votes in favor of Democrats. (That accusation, too, is false.) Beyond that, there's this simple thing to remember about ACORN: It works in urban areas. The district in which Hoffman ran is decidedly not ACORN territory.

Page 1 of 8 in 2009 Elections Earliest ⇒

2009 Elections in the news

Loading...

Currently in Salon

Other News