CUTS BOTH WAYS
“Last November, Americans flocked to the polls to vote for change,” ABC’s Rick Klein writes at abcnews.go.com.
“A year later, change again drove voters on an Election Day — with much different results,” Mr. Klein said.
“The same dynamics that powered President Obama to victory — frustration with the status quo, economic anxieties, hope that new leadership can bring answers — now stand as the biggest threats to the Democrats’ governing agenda.
“One year after Obama’s resounding victory, the soaring rhetoric of campaigning has given way to the trench warfare of governing in a polarized country. The president’s agenda is now backed up behind a stalled health care bill, even as the calendar prepares to flip into a congressional election year.
“[Tuesday’s] election results bring the president’s obstacles into harsh focus: All three marquee races on the ballot resulted in party switches. The lesson: Change cuts in at least two directions.”
TOO BIPARTISAN?
Markos Moulitsas, perhaps the most prominent liberal blogger, blames a surfeit of bipartisanship for Democratic defeats Tuesday night.
Mr. Moulitsas, writing at about 9:30 p.m. election night at www.dailykos.com, said that “preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:
• “If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary ’bipartisanship,’ you will lose votes.
• “If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
• “If you forget why you were elected — health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform — you will lose votes.
“Tonight proved conclusively that we’re not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We’ll turn out if we feel it’s worth our time and effort to vote, and we’ll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.
“The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren’t going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they’re voting for, and it ain’t you.”
TWO TRENDS
“By electing governors of Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans have demonstrated that two trends suggested in recent opinion polls are for real,” Fred Barnes writes at www.weeklystandard.com.
“The first is that Republicans have pulled off a remarkable comeback after disastrous election defeats in 2006 and 2008. The second is that they now have a realistic shot at capturing the House and gaining Senate seats in the 2010 midterm election,” Mr. Barnes said.
“The stunning success in Virginia and New Jersey was strikingly similar to Republican victories for governor in those states in 1993. Indeed, the margins of victory - an 18-point landslide in Virginia, a narrow win in New Jersey - were almost identical to the margins in 1993.
“Those victories 16 years ago were the first clue that Republicans were on the rise after losing the White House in 1992. In 1994, Republicans won 52 seats in the House and a dozen in the Senate and took control of both bodies.
“Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip from Richmond, Va., said sweeping pickups in 2010 are now possible. ’If we play this right as Republicans … we may lay the foundation for taking a majority’ in the House next year. Republicans would need to capture 40 seats to take over the House.
“The election triumphs were also ’a shot across the bow to moderate Democrats’ faced with voting in the House for President Obama’s health care proposal and for cap-and-trade legislation to curb greenhouse gases. ’I’ve got to believe they’ve gotten their wake-up call,’ Cantor said.”
CAUTIONARY TALE
“Was [Tuesday] night a ’message’ to Barack Obama?” Jay Cost asks at www.realclearpolitics.com.
“Maybe yes. Maybe no. I have my suspicions, but ultimately I’m not sure because he was not on the ballot anywhere. I think [Tuesday] night can be understood as a cautionary tale for the president — and here I would point to the case of New Jersey,” Mr. Cost said.
“Times are tough in the United States of America. And [Jon] Corzine’s defeat should remind us that when politicians get the blame for tough times, no amount of campaigning, spending, union organizing, or anything of the sort can spare them from the wrath of the voters, even in a state that is highly partial to their side of the aisle.
“Jon Corzine got the blame for the tough times in New Jersey, and that meant an end to his political career. If Barack Obama ends up getting blamed for these tough times, no number of rallies, campaign dollars, magnificent speeches in filled-to-capacity stadiums, or optimistic slogans will keep him in the White House.
“A large portion of the country is now prepared to assign blame to him, in some form or another. The RealClearPolitics average shows a large minority — 44 percent — registering disapproval of the president’s handling of the job. …
“The lesson from [Tuesday] night, I think, is that Jon Corzine won roughly the share of voters who approve of the job he was doing - and his opponents won those who disapproved. The same fate awaits Barack Obama. He’ll be judged on how well he governs - and if the country deems him to have done an insufficient job, all the politicking between now and the end of time will not do a thing for him.”
THE DAY AFTER
“There will be a tendency among Democrats to react to last nights elections in different ways,” Peter Wehner wrote Wednesday in a blog at www.commentarymagazine.com.
“Some will insist that this was a passing storm with no long-term implications. Others will argue that the public wanted what Obama was peddling — but it only wants it faster. So if deeply unpopular health care legislation had been passed in, say, August, all would be right with the world this morning.
“Still others will take away from last night the idea that Democrats need to be more negative and more aggressive. In other words, they need more candidates parroting angry white men like Keith Olbermann, Frank Rich, and Paul Krugman.
“The one takeaway that would actually do Democrats some good - namely, that a major recalibration is in order and that they need to pull back from their feverish effort to ram down the public’s throat a deeply liberal and increasingly unpopular agenda - is probably the one that will be most ignored.”
• Greg Pierce can be reached at 202/636-3285 or gpierce@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.