How last night's election results were bad for Obama.

Who's winning, who's losing, and why.
Nov. 4 2009 12:20 AM

What a Difference a Year Makes

How last night's election results were bad for Obama.

This piece was originally published on Election Night, Nov. 3, and updated on Nov. 4, after the results for New York's 23rd district were in. 

President Obama's message of change was so powerful in 2008 that voters held on to it for an extra year. In Virginia and New Jersey, they dropped the incumbent Democratic Party and went with the Republican candidates. In New Jersey, voters said change was the quality that mattered most in their vote for governor, and among those voters, Chris Christie won by a margin of more than two to one. (The closely watched special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, where independent Douglas Hoffman ran as an agent of change, was too close to call.)

It was a good evening for Republicans. Their candidates won, but they also picked up some good talking points—and, boy, do they need them. Voters have a low opinion of the Republican Party. In a variety of polls, the number of people willing to admit to pollsters that they belong to the GOP has been at its lowest level in 25 years.

John Dickerson John Dickerson

John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. Read his series on the presidency and on risk.

Washington Republicans have been trying to nationalize these gubernatorial elections: Voters were reacting to Obama's policies, they say. That's a stretch. Neither Republican candidate tried to run against Obama. (In Virginia, Bob McDonnell actually praised Obama when he won the Nobel Peace Prize.) But all this talk about Obama also obscures a better message: For the GOP, the stronger argument coming out of the 2009 elections is that voters are embracing Republican ideas. The GOP won in a purple state and in a solidly Democratic state.

Advertisement

The Republican candidates killed among independents. In both New Jersey and Virginia, they won by two to one. Independent voters make up their largest share of the electorate since pollsters have been counting them. In 2006 and 2008, these voters backed Congressional Democrats, and in the 2008 presidential race, they went for Obama 51 percent to 47 percent over John McCain. They've been souring on his presidency, though, and now more disapprove of his performance than approve. In Virginia, Obama won 48 percent of independents. The Republican Bob McDonnell won 68 percent of those voters this time around. In New Jersey, Christie carried independents 58 percent to 31 percent, which helped him overcome the fact that there are 700,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in that state.

Winning independents is important because Democrats are trying to paint Republicans as captive to the most extreme wing of the party. Independents, who tend to dislike extremism of any sort, wouldn't be voting for Republicans if that were the case.

The GOP just has to hope that the congressional race in New York's 23rd district gets less attention, regardless of the outcome. Of course, that's not what populist conservatives want. For them, a victory of the independent conservative candidate Hoffman would be a spark to light the bigger fire of a Grand National Realignment. Maybe. But it's going to be ugly getting from here to there, as conservatives bicker with moderates and party insiders bicker with self-styled outsiders. Indeed, fights are breaking out all over in the GOP. The latest is Sen. Olympia Snowe vs. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty over how the party should proceed on health care reform.

The New York race already split the party—pitting Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson against Newt Gingrich and the Republican National Committee. A victory would probably spur more purity tests as conservatives seek to repeat their success. Any presidential candidate who wants to show his conservative credentials will seek out opportunities in future races like New York's 23rd district to call out ideologically impure candidates. That may have worked in the northernmost district of New York, where Palin could successfully weigh in. But it might not work elsewhere. In Virginia, for example, McDonnell resisted Palin's help.

The evening was not a referendum on Obama. Each race had local issues—taxes in New Jersey and transportation in Virginia—and flawed candidates. By clear majorities, voters in New Jersey and Virginia said they weren't basing their decisions on the president. The 60 percent who said so in New Jersey almost matched the same number who gave a similar answer to the New York Times about George Bush on the eve of the 2005 gubernatorial elections. Thirty-nine percent said they were voting to oppose the president (though Bush's approval rating at the time was 39 percent, 12 points lower than Obama's is now).

But that's not to say it was a good night for Obama. Voters are very jittery about the economy. In both New Jersey and Virginia, voters listed it as their top priority. Those voters overwhelmingly voted for Republicans. That's not good for Obama or his party going into the 2010 elections—unless, of course, the jobs picture turns around. A Democracy Corps poll sounded a warning on Election Day. In the 60 closest congressional districts, Republicans scored somewhat better than Democrats on the economy, particularly with messages that focused on the deficit.

  Slate Plus
Slate Picks
Dec. 19 2014 4:15 PM What Happened at Slate This Week? Staff writer Lily Hay Newman shares what stories intrigued her at the magazine this week.