The Stealth Election of 2009

 So its the first Tuesday of November... the day we hold our annual elections (although for completely different offices, unless its only for a one year term). After the undoubtedly historic election of 2008 and the turmoil that occurred concurrently and since, this election appeared to have snuck up on many of us, some even asking "What election?" Yes there is one and there are a number of races that were highly watched as they were labelled a "barometer" of Obama's presidency as Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota put it. There were interesting races across the country from governorships to numerous municipal elections. I'll start with the big ones...

Virginia and New Jersey Governorships:
Before I get to each individual race, lets just analyze the current state of American politics, briefly of course. The big question is... Are these races in any way a referendum on Obama's Presidency. The answer, in my opinion is a simple no. Americans are GREAT at separating Federal and State Elections. Now I'm not discounting the existence of coattails... but thats usually a bigger phenomenon when the person pulling the coattails is ACTUALLY on the ballot. Obama is NOT on the ballot. Additionally... there are unique conditions in both Virginia and New Jersey that even I concede I don't have a clue about. Wins in the Republican column in no way mean anything in terms of Obama's Presidency. Lets put this in a simple caricature....

Lets leave the President and his current agenda and issues as is. Health Care Reform, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Climate Change bills being his main concerns. But say a state is choosing their governor.... do national issues ALWAYS trump local issues in elections? Of COURSE not. A state may be more concerned about slot machines, sales tax, budget crises and other things. There's a reason why we have a federal structure of government... issues are handled at different levels. So what may be the focus of the federal government it does not necessarily match state governments and I think most people realize that.  The election of a particular candidate at the state level does not mean that the approval or disapproval of the president has any bearing (especially since the powers of these two offices almost never overlap). 

Additionally... we are dealing with ACTUAL candidates in state elections. Its not "Obama's Party" v. "Not Obama's Party" (although after last years thwomping, it may seem that way). There are names and faces, debates and ads. State elections are inherently separate animals then their federal counterparts. ESPECIALLY when its an off year election as it is now. Off year elections almost ALWAYS favor the party NOT in power.

So specific to this year... What should we have expected before today... Voter turnout will be abysmal. I'm talking 20% in most places. This has very astounding effects. 
A) Federal elections get a lot more media attention and will attract more voters due to perceived "importance". What does this mean in terms of results. Biased sampling will be far more prevalent. Since people are not generally passionate about the off year elections, the people who DO turnout will not be representative of the population as a whole (sampling bias). The people who are more passionate will show up in greater numbers (and its usually the people who are not in power). The Republicans SHOULD do better in this election. 
B) Minority and Youth turnout is expected to be low. With 2008 numbers for both youths and minorities at record levels, it is only natural to see them collapse. But off years even more so. Older generations tend to vote with more regularity (only somewhat more). The enthusiasm gap that plagued Republicans last November is now reversed. Youths and minorities are not going to match the numbers they put up last year and never have come out in force on off years. Older white rural voters tend to have a greater share of the vote in off years. Again a plus for Republicans

So does this translate into wins in New Jersey and Virginia....

New Jersey:
Given Corzines approval ratings flirting with the freezing mark, yes, Christopher Christi should have one. Really, had Republicans put up a more qualified candidate who could articulate his thoughts (and apparently was skinnier), they would have solidly won this (easily by double digits). Corzines abysmal approval rating should have marked a tidal wave of votes for the Republicans and given the conditions of 2009, Christi's sub-50% win is actually disappointing. But, a W by a Republican in a blue state is still a good W. Besides, in non-Wave years, flips like this are rather pointless. Great, the GOP have a governor in New Jersey. Too bad he doesn't control the legislative agenda and his party is the minority in New Jersey. A pretty hollow victory.

Virginia:
Despite the rather large victory by Obama in 2008, Virgina is still a fairly red state. But as I pointed out earlier, this is not an Obama Referendum. The candidate the VA Democratic Party put up for governor was a poor candidate and may have lost for NOT being liberal ENOUGH and resulted in a piss poor enthusiasm in the Democratic base. When polls earlier this summer suggested a close race for tonight, instead of trying to enthuse his base and getting the Youth and Minority demographics out in force, he tried moving left of center suggesting he'd opt out of the public option being among his most controversial things. As McCain struggled with alienating his base (his TRUE moderate base), Deeds has repeated that problem. This and the off year election factors that favor the Republicans in 09, there is no surprise that Republicans won. 

Here's how it should be looked it... the Two Governorships falling into Republican hands SHOULD have occurred. If they didn't, that would have been a very large upset and would have spelled huge troubles for the Republican Party. So tonights victories, although still good, isn't stellar. 

The GOP should be worried about losing NY-23, a district that normally favors Republicans. But the confusing split in the Republican ranks may have just handed the election to the Democrats. A big loss indicative of the moderates becoming disillusioned with the Republican party and following Dede Scozzafava's advice of backing the Democratic just shows that the ideological split in the GOP can and will still spell trouble in 2010. This is a race that the Republicans should have held on to, but the Teabagging wing of the Republican Party has turned off many moderate Republicans. 

My local races:
Nothing terribly exciting in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. The mayors of Minneapolis and Saint Paul cruised to re-election by garnering nearly 70% of the vote in their respective cities. The big news of the day is that Minneapolis used Ranked Choice voting (instant runoff voting) and ran very smoothing and across the Mississippi, Saint Paul's voters voted to use this same system for future elections. The vote won with around 53% of the vote. 

Other major races include... 
Atlanta (First white female?)
Houston (First Openly gay mayor?)
The Gay Marriage referendum in Maine

As of the writing of this post, Atlanta and Houston were poised to make history. The Gay Marriage referendum may overturn the legislature's efforts to legalize gay marriage although a recount is possible in Maine. If there are any races anyone else wants to comment on ... go for it.