Now that the overblown hype over the governor's races in New Jersey and Virgina has died down, cooler heads are starting to prevail among the DC pundits and politicos. Today the NY Times has an article that covers the REAL story from this week's elections, and points out what we've all been saying for days now: The Republicans' loss in the congressional race New York’s 23rd District was an all-out "disaster" for the Republican Party, and could spell trouble for the GOPers' hopes for a big turnaround in the 2010 races.
The Times gets right to the point in stating the obvious about the NY-23 race:
It is not often that a political party puts more than $750,000 behind a candidate in a high-profile Congressional race, only to see the intended beneficiary endorse the opposition.
But that is exactly what happened in the race for New York’s 23rd District, a convoluted contest that turned into an Election Day disaster for the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Not often? I'd like to know of another congressional race where a major party's leaders fought against its endorsed candidate for Congress, to the point where the candidate dropped out and endorsed the opposition party's candidate. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Although the national Republican party has tried to play down its loss in NY-23 by chalking it up to quirks in the state's political system (with the corporate media happily playing along with that meme up until now), the Times admits today that the GOP suffered "notable fallout" from the loss:
Besides tapping the group’s treasury on behalf of a defector, it also raised questions about the capabilities of the Republican organization, which had already lost a special election in a Republican-leaning New York district earlier this year. It has now been beaten by Democrats in five consecutive contested special elections — the political version of going one on one.
What's that again? The Dems have beaten Republicans in five of the last five contested special elections for Congress?? Now there's a trend we haven't seen the corporate media making any note of. At all.
The Times notes that the GOP's devastating NY-23 election loss was a much bigger blow to the party than anyone in the GOP is willing to admit. And it finally decides to have fun with numbers and point out a lede that has been buried deep in the ground by everyone but those biased liberal blogs: The Democrats gained seats in Congress this week.
The loss in New York had a significant psychological impact. It prevented an off-year Republican triumph that would have sent Democrats into a tailspin after a summer of angry town-hall-style meetings and boiling "tea party" demonstrations.
Instead, Democrats saw the only two national seats up for grabs — the New York seat and a second House seat in the Bay Area of California — end up in their hands. Losses for governor in New Jersey and Virginia became causes for concern rather than full-blown panic.
The Times seems almost disappointed that the lunatic "teabagger" fringe hasn't been able to actually, um, help the Republican Party win elections. Go figure.
The article gives some of the credit for the Democrats' victory in NY-23 to a "formidable House campaign organization" that the Dems have built up over the past few years. And they note that the Dems have been working the district from the get-go:
While Republicans may have been victims of odd developments in upstate New York, the race was no accident. Democrats planned to make mischief in the district from the moment Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, approached John M. McHugh, who held the seat, about becoming Army secretary. Democrats smelled opportunity.
Fortunately for us, it appears that the GOPers have not learned anything from the loss. After going 0-5 against the Dems in special elections - including a loss in a congressional district that hasn't had a Democratic congressperson since the 19th century - the Repugs' plan appears to be to stay the course:
In the aftermath of the election, the House Republican leadership says it sees no reason to shake up the campaign committee as they head into an election season they see as promising.
"Staff over there did a good job given the hand they were dealt," said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.
All I can say is, go teabaggers!!!
UPDATE:
As jj32 points out, another thing the corporate media have tended to ignore is just how rare it is for the party in the White House to win a special election. As CQ Politics points out:
The outcome also was significant because it’s very rare for the party controlling the White House to flip control of a seat that way. Owens’ victory in New York’s 23rd was the first time since 2001 and only the sixth time in the past 30 years that has happened. And not since 1980 had a Democratic White House claimed a special election victory in a Republican-held district.
But don't forget, the Democratic Party is in shambles after Tuesday's elections!