Five Lessons From the 2009 Elections

November 16, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (2)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Nancy Pelosi's successful effort to get healthcare through the U.S. House of Representatives provided the Democrats with a short-term political victory that blunted the impact of the party's losses in the 2009 election. That the bill passed with almost the barest number of "Aye" votes required suggests the party, and the legislation, still has rough sledding ahead.

Whether these elections were a repudiation of Obama and the Democrats is not clear. Supporters of the president argue they were not while his opponents say they were. Most interesting, however, is the lessons each party is drawing from what happened in New Jersey and New York and in Virginia which, even at this late date, deserve additional attention.

Nathan Daschle, the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, whose candidates got thumped on Nov. 3, attributed their defeats to local issues, not the national climate. Therefore, he suggested, Democrats running for governor in 2010 would do best to stay focused on local issues.

"Republicans are going to try to use federal issues to box in Democrats and we can't fall for that," he told reporters at one post-election briefing. "We need to demonstrate our capacity to govern and our capacity to get results." In plain English this means that Obama, Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and their joint-agenda for bigger government are going to be a drag on the party at the state and local level.

Democrats running in 2010 will not be able to withstand the impact of a nationalized election like the one the Republicans ran in 1994 under Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. But even local elections may turn on federal actions after the Obama administration elected to have the 9/11 plotters stand trial in New York City rather than appear before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay. Bringing the rest of the "Gitmo" detainees to Illinois, as the plan currently appears to be, isn't going to help either.

Republicans, whether they opt to nationalize the election or not, would do well to follow the advice of former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie who, in a post-election Washington Post op-ed, argued in favor of GOP candidates running on "a positive, detailed policy agenda."

Gillespie, who served as the honorary general chairman of Republican Bob McDonnell's successful gubernatorial campaign, said the election results demonstrated power of a five-point, issues-based strategy for victory that, in fact, have application for both parties, if used correctly.

Those key ideas:

1. Candidates need to convert political principles into practical politics—and explain why those policies translate into improvements in the quality of life of the average voter, in contrast to what the other candidate has proposed;

2. Campaigns need to be run on an inclusive basis, one that reaches out beyond the base for support and does not cede the middle;

3. Candidates need to speak like leaders, communicating ideas and conducting themselves in ways that convey respect for the voters and for the process;

4. Campaigns and candidates need to keep pace with developments in technology, matching at least what the other side is doing if not doing it better;

5. Parties and activists need to back strong candidates, because election usually boils down to two people—sometimes three—competing for the same job.

The contrasting advice put forward by Gillespie and Daschle say a lot about what each party thinks the 2009 election results mean. But they also concur—at least so far as they share the idea that voter preference is more often than not a unique and personal thing, heavily influenced by the sense of which candidate will do a better job. Each, in his own way, also reminds those who run campaigns and those who run in campaigns of the importance of establishing that essential connection with the average voter. Whatever the political climate, whether it's national or local, the voters will almost always respond better to the candidate they perceive is on their side, not somebody else's.

Tags:
elections

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I can find no fault with the five points Gillespie offers.

It's what he didn't offer that bothers me: the money and politics problem.

Can anyone seriously doubt that money has corrupted American politics? Can anyone doubt that without real reform in how political campaigns are funded, government in America

cannot be "of the people, by the people, for the people" and will remain as it has been for quite some time now, "of the moneyed, by the moneyed, for the moneyed"? Common folks have one vote apiece and have town hall meetings. Folks with money buy the direction of government they want and have direct access to candidates.

Why didn't Gillespie choose to learn this from the 2009 elections or from any number of prior ones? Of course. Ed Gillespie knows by whom his bread is buttered. Why rock the gravy boat?

Ron W. Smith of UT 4:25PM November 17, 2009

Three reasons why we have "our" current leadership:

Jr Senator Obama promised "change"...for the worse!

American voters forget just how BAD Democratic leadership can be.

John McCain inspired no one (although he was more qualified).

Washington has become a self-serving "industry" that hasn't served the best interest of the American people for decades.

Nothing can get done in that town without "favors", "compromise" and "deals" and none of these benefit US.

The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Trilogy are behaving as children raiding the candy store...

Good thing? Their parents are about to come home in 2010.

Hopefully the Republican/Independants will behave like adults this time around.

Chris Petty of GA 12:34AM November 17, 2009

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Political Enemies: Good vs. Perfect

In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement