From the ArcaMax Publishing, Susan Estrich Newsletter:
http://www.arcamax.com/news/susanestrich/s-643409-557519
Everything and nothing happened on Tuesday. I could have predicted
that. Whoever "wins" says it means everything. Whoever "loses" says it
means nothing. That's how off-off-year elections work. History
supports both sides.
This time, the Republicans managed to claw at least a little bit of
defeat from the jaws of victory with their act of self-destruction in
New York-23. As everyone in the world now knows, a district that has
been Republican since the Civil War is sending a Democrat to Congress
on account of the intrusion of Republican Party leaders in the form of
Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, quickly followed by everyone (else) who
wants to be president.
Nancy Pelosi, up one for the night, claimed victory. The president's
spokesman, contradicting the steady refrain of Republicans, said New
Jersey and Virginia had absolutely nothing to do with the president.
In a way, that's true, which is not good for Democrats.
What Obama defenders have repeatedly and rightly pointed out is that
the president remains popular in both of the states Republicans won on
Tuesday -- more popular, unfortunately for them, than the two
Democrats who, especially Jon Corzine, sought a boost from his
coattails. There was no boost. The Obama "voters" did not turn out.
And some of those who did voted Republican this time.
I've worked with Corzine campaigns in the past. They know how to "do
field," that is, to find and bring out every last voter in the state
who could be identified. Corzine had issues with his voters
independent of the president, starting with taxes. Still, press
secretary Robert Gibbs is right. In New Jersey, the gap between
Corzine's numbers and the president's is the difference between defeat
and victory. Nothing the president -- or a great field organization
benefiting from his -- could do could deliver that vote.
Not good news if you got elected two years ago in part because the
president was on top of the ticket.
It's a long, long time, politically speaking, between now and the next
time Barack Obama has to run. That's good news for the president, but
not so good for those who could use some fairy dust. It means members
of Congress in marginal districts are essentially on their own.
And that makes health care even trickier, if that could be possible.
On the one hand, the pressure on Democrats to support the president
will, if anything, be more intense now than it has been. He needs them
more. The House leadership needs to deliver. Rahm Emanuel needs to
deliver. Allowing health care reform to get close only to be killed
amid claims that the plan was the wrong one is a movie whose ending
we've lived through once. It's not one anyone would like to see again,
on the Democratic side.
On the other hand, you could be in real trouble with voters in your
district, especially independents, if you're seen as supporting an
unpopular reform effort because Pelosi squeezed you to keep you in
line. Not good, either. I don't know too many marginal members who are
eager to see their re-elections turn into a referendum on health care
reform.
It may be too late, and it certainly isn't anyone's style here, but
the real lesson of New York-23 may be about the risks of allowing the
perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Shooting inside the tent cost the Republicans a ridiculously safe
seat. Democrats are capable of doing the same. They need to pass a
health care plan that won't cost the Democratic majority that
majority, or the whole effort could blow up in the president's face.
Just in time for him to be on the top of the ballot. And then it could
mean everything to him.
========
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other
Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
Syndicate website at www.creators.com.