As the country is digesting the special election for a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, eyes now are fully upon Marco Rubio. After elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts, conventional wisdom suggests that a path to victory over the "Obama phenomena" has become quite clear: fiscal conservatism (downplay social conservatism), limited government, strong national defense, and anti-health care reform (or at least anti-current health care reform efforts). For Marco Rubio in the Senate race in Florida, and even House candidates in PA like Josh First, this has to be music to their ears.
After the gubernatorial races in VA and NJ, and now the Senate race in MA, Republicans, in particular, are proclaiming a "seismic shift." Yes, it is significant for a Republican to win in the Northeast, let alone in MA - but in no way do these results suggest a seismic shift. What they do suggest is that small shifts - if they occur in the right circumstance can have massive consequences.
The Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate (assuming they hold onto the few moderates) to put a damper on quite a bit of President Obama's agenda. The Democratic Party still has a massive advantage in the Senate, but it is not filibuster proof. Democrats had 60 votes for a cloture vote, and now with one tiny seat change - much has changed in Washington. But what students of politics should note is that (1) some of the Obama phenomena was a bit overdone, and (2) margins matter. First, just about everything that could fall for the Democrats in 2008 did so. Senate seat, after Senate seat, broke in the Democratic favor. But this was not really a new realignment of the electorate. Instead in places like North Carolina which elected a Democratic Senator and went to President Obama - there was a unique confluence of the lefty-Asheville and academic Raleigh-Durham folks with high African-American turnout. That high African-American turnout appears to be not really sustainable for the Democratic Party without running of African-American candidates. Second, one does not need a huge change to have massive effects: margins matter. The American system of "first past the post" means that if one gets just 48% of the two-party vote, one loses. If one eeks out another 2.1% of the vote, and winds up with 50.1% of the votes - one wins. That's all it takes. And when that 2.1% means the difference between 40 and 41 seats in the Senate - the difference is quite astounding.
So what to take? Well, the Marco Rubios and Josh Firsts of the Republican Party should be happy and take to heart the lessons of these last three elections. But - paraphrasing Mark Halperin, "if the election of November 2010 were held today, I would be quite surprised - as it's scheduled for November 2010." A lot (or just a little) can happen between now and the election - and even a little can matter a lot.
About Me
- Martin J. Sweet
- is a professor, political commentator, and Director of Content for thelaw.tv. Sweet was the 2005 co-winner of the APSA's Corwin Prize for the nation's best dissertation in the area of public law. His book, "Merely Judgment: Ignoring, Evading and Trumping the Supreme Court," is forthcoming from the University of Virginia Press in November 2010. Professor Sweet is a regular political contributor for local television and radio stations, and has been interviewed for his political analysis numerous times by the Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Scripps-Howard News Service, as well as the Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Daily News, and the Washington Post. Sweet has also been an invited speaker and panel moderator for national and local education, civic, and religious organizations.
