A lot of conventional wisdom about the 2010 elections died an ignoble death last night, as voters once again proved that even though the inside-the-Beltway crowd loves to attempt to pigeonhole them one way or another, when the election rolls around the voters have the final say. The breadth of such conventional wisdom's demise is rather staggering in its scope, too. So today, rather than dissecting yesterday's primaries (plenty of time for that in the days to come), I'd like instead to dissect a few themes which proved to be either partially or absolutely wrong last night.
The first of these is that the Tea Party folks are worthy only of ridicule. This is a theme from both the Left and from the mainstream media. The Right, of course, has been split over the Tea Party movement. Republican party insiders were terrified of the Tea Party before last night, and now they are positively quaking in their boots (chief among them, John McCain). But the press on the Right has loved every minute of the Tea Party, almost from before it even sprang into being. What yesterday changed for everyone (except Fox News, of course) is that now the Tea Party will be seriously discussed, and not given short shrift (or worse, ridicule). The Left, in particular, has already started pivoting to "Rand Paul would be better than an ultra-partisan Republican" and has started to say some nice things about (small-L) libertarians. Watch for the inside-the-Beltway folks to wake up to the Tea Party's seriousness very quickly, too. And watch for the elitist sneering derision Washington types have been heaping on the Tea Party to vanish like the morning dew, as well.
But watch for the conventional wisdom to gel too quickly around another red herring -- that Tea Party wins in Republican primaries will mean Tea Party victories in November. Tea Party voters are probably the most enthusiastic of any 2010 voters, to be sure. But some of the Tea Party stances have yet to be tested on the campaign trail. So far, the Tea Party folks have been doing pretty good in Republican primaries, but they have yet to be tried against Democrats in a general election (except for the special election in NY-23, which was so odd a race it doesn't really work to draw many conclusions from). And three-way contests will cloud the picture further. Tea Party candidates have secured three Senate GOP nominations to date, in Florida, Kentucky, and Utah. But in Florida (and possibly in Utah, if the ousted Republican incumbent decides to mount a write-in campaign, which he is reportedly considering), it will be a three-way race -- and who knows what that will mean for the chance of a Democratic upset? This is a lot more possible in Florida than in Utah, I should mention. In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, through gritted teeth no doubt, is likely going to embrace Rand Paul and quash any third-party run. But Rand Paul has a few odd opinions which may lose him more votes in the general election than they gained him in the primary. Paul's primary victory may actually put Kentucky in play for Democrats, which nobody really expected. So chalk "Kentucky's a safe seat for the GOP" up as yet another piece of conventional wisdom that went down in flames last night. The numbers were instructive, as well, although the Left is the only one bothering to point this out right now -- there was a Republican primary in Kentucky last night, and a Democratic primary. Both races had two strong candidates. Paul trounced his opponent. But both Democrats, individually, had more votes cast for them than Paul. This shows a lot of energy on the Democratic side, and will be interesting to keep track of as we get closer to November.
The most-oft repeated conventional wisdom before last night is likely to seldom be heard again: "Republicans are about to sweep the midterms, and will definitely pick up control of the House." Well, um, no. Of course, they may indeed do so, but the aura of inevitability surrounding Republicans was badly tarnished by the only race last night where a Republican faced a Democrat -- a special House election in John Murtha's district (PA-12). This is the only district in the entire country which went for John Kerry, and then John McCain, in the past two presidential elections. It was supposed to be a Republican pickup, with lots of blue-collar disgruntled voters moving much more conservative in recent years. Republicans poured almost one million dollars into the race (one-tenth of what the House Republicans had on hand in their war chest -- a major effort, in other words), because they knew it was so important to their "Republicans are inevitable in 2010" theme. The Democrat won by almost 10 points. That doesn't exactly sound like a "sweep" year for Republicans, since this should have been a relatively easy pickup for them. In actual fact, Democrats are on a real winning streak for these special elections, having won all of them for the past two years, in many different types of district. More on this later, though.
Another piece of Republican Party conventional wisdom which may have fallen is the idea that it's a good campaign plan to run against Nancy Pelosi. In the special election in Pennsylvania, this explicit case was made with some rather ham-handed ads directly attacking Pelosi. This follows another piece of Washington conventional wisdom, which is that whichever party "nationalizes" a midterm election automatically wins. But, as Pennsylvania just proved, sometimes the voters actually consider the candidates and vote for the one they think is better, no matter what is going on nationally.
A big piece of conventional wisdom also likely died last night -- that the president's endorsement is the best possible thing any Democratic candidate can get. Obama endorsed Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln in yesterday's races. The Democratic candidate in PA-12 actually ran against Obama, to a large degree. This continues a losing streak for the White House of endorsing candidates in elections, meaning a lot of Democrats are likely to be very wary of inviting Obama to campaign for them this fall. Of course, Obama's popularity could improve by then, but if it doesn't look for many Democrats to not even bother trying to get a White House endorsement in their campaigns. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me to see Obama announce he's only going to endorse Republicans, since his endorsement so far has proven to be the kiss of death at the polls (OK, that was snarky, I admit).
There's one corollary to the last paragraph, though -- Bill Clinton is still a secret weapon out on the campaign trail. Like him or not, Bubba sure does give a great speech, you've got to admit. And he went into PA-12 very late in the game, and fired up quite a number of Democrats by doing so. Look for Clinton to be much in demand on the campaign trail this year, especially in blue-collar districts.
Yet another bit of conventional wisdom which wasn't all that prominent, but still was utterly refuted last night, is that Big Labor is so weak these days as to be powerless. Labor poured a lot of money and a lot of energy into defeating Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas primary. This was to serve notice to all Democrats -- "don't take Labor for granted." Lincoln has been such a corporate whore and so inimical to Labor's priorities that they decided she'd be a dandy test case to flex their Union muscles upon. Lincoln was key in destroying the public option in the health reform debate, and has actively worked against a few other pet Labor issues, so she was a great target for them -- even though Union membership in Arkansas is virtually non-existent. No matter what happens in the runoff election, Labor has made its point very clearly to Washington Democrats -- they will not accept lip service and corporate-friendly voting patterns from Democrats. Labor may withhold support, or they may actively campaign against sitting Democrats in primaries. Look for Big Labor to get a lot more respect on Capitol Hill in the upcoming months.
The importance of party machinery was another bit of conventional wisdom which fell under the voters' metaphorical axe last night, from both sides of the aisle. Parties are supposed to be the 800-pound gorilla in the political world, not to be crossed by individual officeholders, because their support is so critical in fundraising and other party-machine operations. Both the Democrats and Republicans showed that this is not always the case -- and that sometimes this conventional wisdom can be proven to be spectacularly wrong.
I saved the biggest trope of conventional wisdom for the last, in looking at last night's races, after which I'd like to address a few loose ends now and for the future. Since Barack Obama was elected, the media has trumpeted how the voters supposedly loved "centrism" and "bipartisanship." Nothing could be further from the truth, at least not in primary season. Charlie Crist in Florida was punished for his bipartisan outreach to President Obama. In Utah, the Republicans kicked out their incumbent senator for supposedly being too bipartisan, as well. Arlen Specter was the poster child for bipartisanship, as he jumped parties. And Blanche Lincoln was supposedly a "centrist" Democrat (although, more accurately, she is a "corporatist" Democrat, the media usually used the "centrist" label), and she may be in trouble as well. The moral? So much for bipartisanship and centrism being big draws for voters.
But, looking forward, there are some conventional wisdom traps that some folks are already falling into, in "reading" last night's election and what it all meant. The first of these is kind of unrelated, but bears mentioning -- what you did in (or "during," I should say... ahem) Vietnam still matters. Barack Obama was supposed to be the first "post-Vietnam" politician, and usher in an era where we wouldn't have SwiftBoating to worry about in politics anymore. But the main candidate for the Senate seat in Connecticut which opened up with Chris Dodd's retirement just landed back in the quagmire, so to speak. Or maybe it's just all about the relative truth of what he said and what he didn't say, and only tangentially related to Vietnam. This issue is too new to really foresee what will happen, but I thought I'd mention it in passing here.
The second thing I have already noticed is that last night is being spun as some sort of Lefty or Progressive victory. Well, not really. While I certainly will likely join in the spin-fest myself (since my Friday columns are all about spin), I have to say to Lefties behind the scenes, don't read something into what happened in Pennsylvania and Arkansas that isn't really there. Specter and Sestak are almost identical, ideologically (they vote almost identically, in other words). The guy who won in PA-12 ran against the Democrats' health reform, and against the cap-and-trade idea. He does have some very pro-jobs stances, but he's not some sort of Progressive ideal candidate (he's got to defend his seat in November, remember, although now he'll be able to do so as an incumbent). And Bill Halter in Arkansas isn't any sort of wide-eyed Lefty either, he was just a convenient opponent for Labor to get behind. So while it certainly was a good day for the Left in a generalized kind of way yesterday, it's going to be hard to paint it as a stunning Progressive victory.
Even though I mentioned how voters weren't impressed with "bipartisanship" earlier, I believe it is a false tangent for conventional wisdom to take to assume that voters are embracing partisanship in any big way. Voters from all over the political spectrum likely agree on one thing -- they think Congress is broken. And part of that is hating the hyperpartisanship on display there on a daily basis. To put blame where it belongs, cable television hyping the fights between the parties has likely added to this feeling among voters. Congress, as a whole, polls incredibly low in opinion polls. That hasn't changed in over a year. Democrats and Republicans in Congress also poll very low (although marginally better than "Congress" as a whole) with the public. There's a reason for that. And, while partisanship is the name of the game in the primary elections, we're getting closer and closer to the general election where it doesn't play so well. Just a word of caution, in other words.
And a final word of caution, as well. Because Democrats are feeling pretty good about PA-12 right now, and patting themselves on the back for their winning streak in special House elections. But they'd better enjoy it while they can, because this weekend a special election in Hawaii is likely to elect a Republican in a very Democratic district. This is due to the fact that there was no primary for this race, and two strong Democratic candidates wound up on the ballot with only one strong Republican. Democrats can console themselves with the knowledge that they'll likely win this seat back in November (when there will be a primary to weed things out), but that's not how the headlines are going to read this weekend.
[Note: A good friend of this column, fellow Huffington Post blogger Matt Osborne (a.k.a. "Osborne Ink"), is in the running to win sponsorship to the upcoming Netroots Nation blogging convention, and he needs your vote! It only takes a few seconds to vote for him at the Democracy For America site. Voting ends in a few days, and he needs a big show of support, so I urge everyone to click on over there, and register a vote for him. Help send Matt to Netroots Nation!]
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Paul set himself up to be 2010's Barry Goldwater -- whose radical libertarianism turns him from right wing darling to general election loser. Only in 1964, Goldwater's views weren't counter to nearly 50 years of settled Supreme Court law.
Menachem Rosensaft: Newt Gingrich and Rand Paul Jump the Shark
Here we go again. A prominent Republican likens President Obama to Adolf Hitler, and the Republican leadership remains embarrassingly, shockingly silent.
Mainly to position themselves as candidates for the Seat in the real Deal in November...
This (R) is like Chao in New Orleans, just a seat holder until the next election.
And HCR reform isn't a big issue there because essentially HI already has it.
"the media has trumpeted how the voters supposedly loved "centrism" and "bipartisanship." "
Clearly the media being the media... just following whatever shiny object that catches their attention.
"post-Vietnam"
Nope. as long as Vietnam Veterans are alive it will be an issue. And long after they are all gone it will still be an issue, hopefully.
"Bill Clinton is still a secret weapon out on the campaign trail."
Worked wonders for Hillary. But in general, you are right.
"is being spun as some sort of Lefty or Progressive victory. Well, not really."
I disagree. Any teaparty victory will be a + for the left. Teapartiers will hopefully not march in lockstep with the republicans, thereby weakening the republican base. The liberal base remains intact.
Re: Clinton, Bill and Hillary...
Somebody else made this point, too, and I don't think I responded. Hillary did not deploy "The Big Dawg" anywhere near as much as she could have done, because she was concerned that he'd overshadow her on the campaign trail. So I don't think it's a fair assessment of Bubba's appeal to crowds, or effect on a candidate. Al Gore, too, may have lost because he was scared to use Bill to the fullest extent on the campaign trail. The man, no matter what you think of him, is likely the best campaigner I'll ever see in my life -- even better than Obama, in a lot of ways, and in front of certain audiences in particular.
I'm no rabid fan of either Clinton (just look at any random column I wrote during the 2008 election for proof), but I do give the man his due on the stump.
-CW
"The first of these is that the Tea Party folks are worthy only of ridicule. "
Just because you can get elected (or win a primary) doesn't mean you don't deserve the ridicule, Rand Paul, George Bush, Tom Delay, Strom Thurmond, Congressman who sleeps with his staffer, Sarah Palin, etc.
"Rand Paul would be better than an ultra-partisan Republican"
He is better. He's a whole different kind of crazy. He won't walk in lock step which weakens the republicans, if elected.
"watch for the elitist sneering derision Washington types have been heaping on the Tea Party to vanish like the morning dew, as well."
I hope so. let's pretend they are a serious party. Let them just rip the Republican party in half. And if they become a serious party, even better.
Hawaii is an outlier, as you said, November will restore that balance.
"Obama endorsed Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln in yesterday's races. "
This isn't an Obama problem, it is a Candidate Problem. All those candidates that you mentioned in regards to this, had serious issues that an Obama endorsement couldn't overcome.
Sorry, haven't checked the comments in a while. Should you still read this, I invite you to check out today's column:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/friday-talking-points-124_b_585699.html
which I think you may enjoy a little more.
-CW
Im just at a loss for words today......
Mr. Paul wins what, by any standard would be considered an historic political victory....and IMMEDIATELY goes on national television, douses himself in gasoline, and politely inquires of Rachel Maddow if she has a match!
I've been following politics closely for many years.....and I've never seen anything like it...have you?
If you live long enough you'll see everything
Regards
TM
Certainly not this quickly, no. I sat down this morning to answer some comments, and kind of predicted he'd self-implode, and was STUNNED when I bothered to read the headlines that he had apparently already done so...
Check out the column I just posted at my site, where I predict he'll do it again at some point!
:-)
-CW
PS. And vote for Matt!
Well I did...(vote for Matt) simply because my friend Chris Weigant asked me to......then I promptly got lost in his blog, and that of DemocracyforAmerica particularly, for a couple of hours.....folowing links, reading releated articles, even signing up for (more) E-Mail alerts on specific political topics.
In point of fact, I have been sort of looking (in my typically cursory and fitful fashion) for some way to tie my my interest in politics... to something more directly related to political action through the "netroots" ......BEYOND some piddly contributions (which DO add up.... SEE ALSO: Barack Obama)....and clicking the "show your support" button on this or that website. Democracyfor America seems promising in this regard.
So: For the hundedth time........thanx for the tip.
I've said it before...but it bears repeating:
Other than for use as a word processor..........just a few short months before OUR first exchange here at HuffPo (seems like 2006)......I had no more idea what to do with "this 'ol computer" ...... than I might have known how to land the space shuttle.
What you do here matters, bud ....and has made a more signifigant impact than you might imagine....not only in individual lives such as mine...but in the civic life of our country and the world-at-large..(SEE ALSO: Barack Obama)
At the moment this Rand Paul/Libertarians-guarding-the-chicken-coop has my full interest......so it's back to Weigant.com
All the best
TM
With certain notable exceptions, of course. The initial say about who's on the ballot is pretty important too.
"What yesterday changed for everyone (except Fox News, of course) is that now the Tea Party will be seriously discussed, and not given short shrift (or worse, ridicule)."
How is ridicule from one's ideological opponents worse for a nascent political movement than short shrift? It seems as though the Tea Partiers have gotten plenty of attention, with a large dose of ridicule included certainly, but quite a bit of serious attention too.
"Obama endorsed Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln ... a lot of Democrats are likely to be very wary of inviting Obama to campaign for them"
There's a world of difference between a pro-forma endorsement delivered from Washington, and actually campaigning as in firing up a football-stadium-full of prospective volunteers in early October. He did not campaign for Coakley, Specter, or Lincoln.
"Bill Clinton is still a secret weapon out on the campaign trail."
Yep, that's how Hillary got elected, um, secretary of state.
"Parties are supposed to be the 800-pound gorilla in the political world, not to be crossed by individual officeholders"
Since when and according to whom?
Bill Clinton's just announced he's going to Arkansas to campaign for Blanche Lincoln. He's still pretty popular in his home state, you have to admit, so this could be a boost for Lincoln's chances in the runoff.
-CW
The President did SESTEK a favor, he put SESTEK out there with a seasoned pro! that being Arlan Spector! did SESTEK run a negative campaign? NO! did the Obama run a negative campaign? NO! if the President would have endorsed SESTEK he would have lost! I am sure Republican's voted for SESTEK, why, well, he came agianst WASHINGTON! isn't that their MOTTO! SESTEK was smart! he ran on anti ESTABLISHMENT! he was smart! and he Won!
Frankly I couldn't tell one apart from the other on most issues...........
A Hawai'ian Republican ain't no Strom Thurmond
Can you imagine of Rand Paul's view where even entertained in that state... with it's large indigenous and Asian population....
The (R) will simply hold the set until Nov.
Yeah, those headlines are going to say that someone won with 40% of the vote. Do you think typical readers are too stupid to understand what that means?
No, I think the media's too stupid to include the 40% figure in the headline, actually. I think it'll be "Republican Wins In Obama's Hawaiian District" personally.
But maybe way down in the 16th paragraph they might mention the split-vote nature of what happened.
-CW
Once the extent of the bi-partisan financial legislation's cave-in sinks in, such alternatives, whether lacking a heart, or a brain, or both, may well continue to look pretty good to voters. That is just incomprehensible to the broadcast media, the in-stereo voices of the corporatist establishment, so we can count on them to continue to get it wrong.
I was just thinking to myself that today would be a good day for a column on small-L libertarians. Got a link to what you wrote?
Oh, and I just want to bug EVERYONE once again to go VOTE FOR MATT:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/netroots_nation_scholarships/805-matt-osborne
He's one vote away from taking over 4th place in the rankings, but he needs to hit 3rd to win -- this is out of 115 entries. Your vote counts! Vote for Matt!
:-)
-CW
But, for other things, not so good.
consciousmc.blogspot.com
Very True. Teapartybell.com features this as one of the top ten articles under category Tea Party
It's been mighty hard, but I successfully resisted the urge to say "I told you so!" in this article, to a lot of bloggers and MSM. I've taken the TP seriously since they first appeared on the scene, and I strongly urge others to do so as well. They're taking over the Republican Party, and while it's hit-or-miss, in some places (like Utah) they are doing it in very crafty ways. I see, ultimately, the TP people being as strong as the Chrisitan Right was during the 1980s and 90s, within the GOP. I was surprised at your link, but wonder if some TP folks have noticed that not everyone over on the Left is totally dismissive of them.
-CW
This also illustrates the fact that there are more Democrats than Republicans in KY. The Dems normally run repulsive candidates like Bruce Lundsford for senate, so the GOP keeps winning. Conway is an improvement, but his campaign against Mongiardo was ugly.
You think he's got a shot at Paul in November? How would you rate his chances?
-CW
All that said, I no longer expect Dems to try to distinguish themselves from the GOP and that's why I don't vote for them anymore. If I wanted to vote for Republicans, I'd vote for Republicans.
Ayn Rand Paul will vote "no" on *everything*. I'm not sure if that's better or worse, but it's no different than the GOP presently operates in the senate. He'd fit right in.
Yeah, but he might vote "no" on GOP ideas, too. Well, OK, you're right... that's not much of an improvement, is it?
-CW
"[I]t's going to be hard to paint [yesterday] as a stunning Progressive victory."
I think you're correct on both counts--and that Barack and Rahm should be worried.
If bipartisanship and centrism are election day losers, then President Obama needs a new strategy if he wants a second term. President Obama is 2008 Candidate Obama's Evil Twin: he hasn't delivered a public option, hasn't reversed the damage Bush43 did to our civil liberties, hasn't repealed DADT, hasn't disengaged in Iraq, hasn't promoted restoring Glass-Steagall--but has dissed such mainstream Democrats as Dean, Richardson, and Reich. President Obama is not only no Jack Kennedy, he's no Candidate Obama. His politics--compromise first, then negotiate and keep Wall Street happy--are looking like political suicide.
If he wants a second term, he'd do well to veer left and embrace Rahm Emanuel's nemesis and antithesis: Howard Dean. Obama replacing his Chief of Staff would receive less attention beyond the Beltway than the Yankees replacing a right-handed pitcher with a lefty in a tied ball game would at the average British pub.
Yesterday wasn't a Progressive victory, but it was a taste of how a Progressive victory might be effected--with or without Barack Obama, his centrist game plan and his current, corporatist staff. Keep an eye on Democracy for America and on the unions: they're already preparing for 2012.
There is no 1980 on the horizon.
Excellent post. By 2012, I think Obama will have a few more things chalked up (I think your evil twin list will be a bit shorter, in other words), but you're right about corporatism not being a winning strategy right now.
I don't think Harry Reid has heard this message, though, from the Senate's behavior this week.
-CW
If he delivers a meaningful public option and full restoration of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to pre-Bush43 standards, he can even win back my support. But, given his continued neutrality on a public option and his anti-Miranda position, I don't think he will.
Also: Thanks for the plaudit!