What a difference a year makes, yes?
After all, in 2009, Republican candidates win gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and gay marriage is overturned in Maine. What's not to like if you are a conservative? Coupled with coverage in most leading media that suggests a gap exists in the electorate for Democrats, and you have to imagine Republicans find themselves happily and unexpectedly sitting pretty tonight.
Perfect.
That's just where we what the opposition to think.
The flaw in their thinking?
Let's start with the strength of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates in NJ and VA, which I would call tepid, at best.
The New Jersey Governor, Jon Corzine, was a disaster. By the end of his first term, he polled in the low 30s in terms of favorability. He continued to believe that money, not political skills or personal charm, could bring success in politics. Like a hamster, he went round-and-round on the political wheel, but one never sensed him growing in the job as a leader or political figure. New Jersey is as Democratic a state as you will find, and it takes a pretty terrible Democratic incumbent to lose it.
And in Virginia, a state whose politics I know reasonably well, it's fair to say Creigh Deeds was no Tim Kaine and certainly no Mark Warner or Jim Webb. Let's face it -- Democrats with a moderate disposition who executed well throughout their campaign tend to win in this bellwether southern state. It voted for Obama; it has two Democratic Senators, and Democrats seemed to own the corner office in the state house for the last decade. Creigh Deeds was a nice guy who waffled on taxes, waffled on his support for Obama, and had only a 20-year old thesis to distinguish him from his opponent. Not exactly the Right Stuff.
And Maine? Hey, let's be clear: gay rights are not protected and endorsed by the majority of voters. That's no surprise. Some 31 states have voted against gay marriage when it appears on the ballot. Would the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 been approved by most states at that time?
So, Republicans are encouraged by the fact that they can beat weak Democratic candidates and continue a tradition wherein two-thirds of most states oppose gay marriage at the ballot box.
Terrific.
The bottom line is this for Democrats: most voters like and support Obama. At the same time, they are worried about the economy, about their own jobs, and about the future. They like this White House, but they need to see their own lives improving if they are going to vote Democratic in 2012.
As for the 2010 elections, I expect Obama and the Dems to make plenty of decisions that are short-term unpopular (meaning 2010), but medium-term popular (meaning 2012 and beyond). Most economists predict terrible unemployment thru next year's mid-term elections, and that cannot help the incumbent party.
The good news for Democrats lies in places like Claremont, NH. This city on the western part of the Granite state, once one of the most conservative places in New Hampshire, failed to endorse a conservative insurrection that arose regarding caps on spending. Instead of embracing what might seen as a tried-and-true, anti-incumbent initiative, Claremont voters overwhelmingly supported candidates who supported economic growth and ongoing investment in their community. If Democrats can demonstrate the progress that is the explicit promise in the progressive ideology, coupled with sound candidates for office, they will win.
And if not -- if they waffle and fail to execute -- they will lose.
Sure, Republicans should not over-reach based on the election results from a few states in 2009. But Democrats must also pay heed and understand that results, not ideology, wins elections.
