During the first few days of August, while on vacation back East, I was sitting in our hotel room late one Tuesday night and decided to check in on a small spate of special elections being conducted for legislative seats in two midwestern states: Missouri and Iowa.
Privately, I assumed it could be a long night for the Democrats. The two Missouri seats (one in their state Senate, the other in their state House) were both seats held by Republicans in districts where Donald Trump led Hillary Clinton by at least 20 points. The Iowa House seat was even more bleak: a Democratic-held open seat in a rural district that Hillary Clinton lost 58-37 last November.
Instead, the Democrats overachieved on a solid level. The Missouri Senate seat was a rout for the GOP, but in a district that Donald Trump won 76-20, the Democrat managed a very respectable 32 percent of the vote. In the House seat, Republican Sara Walsh held onto HD-50 for the GOP, but in a district that Trump carried 58-37, she only managed to cling to a 52-48 win over Democrat Michela Skelton.
Then, there was Iowa. And in one of those districts that have received breathless media attention for shifting hard to Trump last year (a 50-48 Obama seat that lurched to a 58-37 Trump victory), Democrat Phil Miller managed a solid 54-44 victory over his Republican rival, Travis Harris.
As I sat on Twitter discussing these results while they emerged, the general tone of the replies I received from progressive souls was, to say the least, far from triumphant:
“So tired of moral victories”
“Being the first place loser is unacceptable. Win.”
“Unless they (the GOP) actually start losing some of those seats close doesn't really matter.”
Let’s explore the genesis of that frustration—plus the reasons why in the long view, it’s potentially misplaced.
Read More