Reactions to the Midterm Elections

A new face of the majority, Sen-elect Tom Cotton (R-AR)

Well, that was brutal.  In what was easily yet another wave election after a series of pundits hedging their bets, the Republicans had a massively strong night, putting Democrats into the minority in the Senate, further into the minority in the House, and most unexpectedly, in a larger deficit in governor's mansions.  Democrats will spend most of today and the remainder of the year trying to figure out what went wrong, while saying this has nothing to do with 2016, while Republicans will claim this is a mandate to enact their agenda (granted, they didn't believe this when President Obama won reelection in 2012, but that's a horse of a different color).  And pundits will try to find meaning in what just happened (including me).  I'll be parceling through a number of the races and what it means for President Obama, Sec. Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the Republicans trying to be Number 45 in the coming days, but this article is simply a quick reaction.

Overall Thoughts

The Democrats clearly have a problem.  While it's likely that we'll get a clearer picture of demographic numbers as official numbers come from state election boards, the turnout clearly was a major issue.  Yes, the Democrats have a geographical issue (I don't want to cannibalize an article I will be writing later today about the problems of the party too much, but you can't write an article about this election without pointing out that the Democrats were hit hard based on geography), but turnout should have helped them have a far less brutal night.  The Democrats need to figure out A) were the 2008 and 2012 elections simply about President Obama and the women/youth/minority voter coalitions that came out aren't ever going to be replicated and B) what can the Democrats do to win the Midterms in the future?  There's no legitimate reason why the Democrats lost a couple of their governor's seats last night in blue states like Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, and Illinois-the base in these states should have been enough to keep the Republicans in check.  The fact is that the Democrats need to figure this out or be doomed to continually be disappointed in their agenda not being enacted-the House will never be won if the Democrats cannot get it through their skulls that the Midterms are just as important as the run for the White House.

Most Disappointing Loss (and yes, I need a couple)

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC)

There are still a number of races that are outstanding, so I'm still waiting to see a few of these races and how they turn out, but it's hard not to look at Sen. Kay Hagan's race and be largely disappointed.  There were a number of races where really strong or longtime incumbent Democrats lost their races, but Hagan's race was roughest, particularly since she did basically everything she could to win.  She led in nearly every poll.  She managed to make the race about local issues, at least it seemed, for nearly the entire race.  She ran a truly effective campaign against Speaker Thom Tillis, and yet that wasn't enough.  It's hard not to look at this race and be petrified by the amount of money that was spent: $100 million is a psychotic amount of money to spend on one specific race, regardless of the outcome, and something we should all think long and hard about in the future whether we want so much untraceable cash to be involved in our elections.  But it should be noted that while the Democrats probably will complain about being outspent, the Democrats had the money this cycle.  That wasn't the issue here-it was the message and the delivery.  Still, Kay Hagan ran a race that was truly effective and I honestly can't really explain her loss at this point without a closer look at the voter turnout numbers.  African-American turnout was up compared to 2010, though down from 2012.  She did considerably better amongst white voters than did President Obama.  There's a lot more to look at in this race, and it's the one I'm most concerned by as a Democrat (was 2008's victory here just a mirage for the Democrats, similar to Indiana, or is this a real option as a swing state?), but it was a rough loss as it was a seat that we'll probably wish we had two and especially four years from now when we start crunching the numbers on the Senate majority.

Amongst the gubernatorial races, I know that most of the Democratic base will look at Scott Walker's win and point out how rough it is that the man who could be president just won by a shockingly similar margin to his races in 2010 and 2012.  And they will correctly bemoan that we just let Florida, a critical 2016 presidential state, slip through our fingers yet again.  But for me, the principle gubernatorial disappointment is Kansas.  Gov. Sam Brownback has been a Democrat's worst nightmare in office.  His cuts to education, the arts,  his refusal to set up an insurance exchange, and his unnecessarily intense tax cuts caused the state to go through a rough and totally preventable budget deficit, and is the clearest example in the country of how the Tea Party's policies, when actually enacted, will run the economy into the ground.  The fact that Brownback was still able to win, simply because of the letter behind his name, is a very tough pill to swallow and should send shivers up the spines of red state Democrats from Idaho to South Dakota to Georgia.

And of course, sometimes you have incumbents that you just tend to like, which is me with Rep. Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire.  Shea-Porter first came to the House in 2006, when she was THE shock of the night, coming out of nowhere to beat Rep. Jeb Bradley.  Shea-Porter has never led in aggregate polling heading into an election, and yet she won reelection in 2008 and surprised yet again by being elected to the House in 2012 after losing in 2010.  This year she had her third rematch with former Rep. Frank Guinta, and in a very close race, she lost, likely ending her political career.  Shea-Porter is a good reminder that an average person can actually run for and make a career in Congress, so it's s a sad day that she won't be around anymore.  This also ends the first all-female delegation in United States history.

Most Exciting Wins

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

This is where the results being out is probably costliest for me.  If the numbers hold, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick randomly winning yet again in Arizona (she won in 2012 despite Mitt Romney carrying her seat, and now appears like she has pulled it off in a Republican wave, which she couldn't accomplish in 2010 when she lost her seat) would be toward the top of my list.  This is someone who has taken some brave votes in Congress (she voted for the ACA, pushed hard for immigration reform, and took a really tough hit in the shutdown by voting against a piecemeal legislation that would have gotten Republicans off-the-hook, a vote that clearly factored in tourist-heavy Arizona).  If she holds, this is probably my answer, as it's one of the rare seats the Democrats won that defies the logic of the election.

If I have to pick a seat that has already been called universally, it would easily be Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire.  Unlike Kirkpatrick, this is a seat that I expected to stay with the Democrats, though I have to admit that I was nervous about it for most of the night.  However, if there's a race that vexed me more than anything, it was this one.  Shaheen was clearly the better candidate on paper.  She was a former governor, relatively popular, a good match for her state on the issues, and an incumbent.  Her opponent moved randomly from another state, ran against Shaheen with little regard for his constituency, and ran a poor campaign.  I know Paul Begala said that the Republicans ran "better candidates," but that wasn't always the case-they may have run better, more cohesive campaigns, but better candidates is a bit of a stretch.  And if you want clear proof of that, look to New Hampshire.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the Democrats didn't have 100% losses this year like the GOP did in 2006.  Democrat Gwen Graham defied the entire logic of the evening by winning the panhandle district that has alluded Democrats the past two cycles, defeating Rep. Steve Southerland in Florida.  While the Democrats could still score pickups in CA-31 and NE-2, this is the only seat as of this writing where the Democrats picked up a seat in the House, and as a result, my hat is off to you, Rep-elect Graham.  Hopefully you can teach some of your colleagues a thing or two.

Most Puzzling Results

Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown (D-MD)

Okay, I know that everyone's favorite answer here is the Virginia Senate race, and that is admittedly puzzling.  Sen. Mark Warner, like Jeanne Shaheen, is popular, ran a more public campaign, and is a longtime resident/politician/former governor.  However, unlike Shaheen, Warner was never vulnerable in the polls, and yet he closed with a near miss in what would have been the stunner of the night.  Some outlets have called this, others are being a bit more tepid (though it seems clear, barring some sort of GOP miracle, that Warner has won a second term).  What makes this stranger is that certain seats that should have been equally as vulnerable, like Tom Udall in New Mexico or Al Franken in Minnesota, easily went to the Democrats.  I'm genuinely curious what the numbers look like here.

However, for me the big puzzles came in other less-buzzed-about races.  Who would have guessed, for example, that Vermont would have a crazy close gubernatorial election (the state never throws out its incumbent governors).  Or that Anthony Brown would get pummeled in the race to be Governor of Maryland (seriously-what happened there?!?).  And then there were some of the House races.  While people like Reps. John Barrow and Pete Gallego losing make sense in theory (conservative district, Republican wave, etc), there were some odd losses scattered around the country.  Democrats lost races in New York-24, Iowa-1, and quite possibly California-16, and Louise Slaughter looks likely to be headed to a recount in New York's 25th district.   These are all four seats that have an D+5 or higher ranking from the Cook Partisan Voting Index, and President Obama won all of these seats by double-digits in 2012.  In the case of CA-16 (where Rep. Jim Costa is currently down) and NY-25, this gets even stranger-these races President Obama won by twenty points, and these are longtime incumbent Democrats.  The fact that they couldn't seal the deal should be a serious warning sign to the Democrats.  Yes, these seats will likely be at the top of the list of takeover possibilities in 2016, but they never should have been vulnerable to begin with, and the fact that polling didn't catch these races is a sign that the DCCC needs to be more proactive.

We're going to leave it there for now, but the rest of the week will likely be devoted to more coverage and thoughts about the Midterms (as well as potentially a film review or two), but what were your biggest wins, hardest losses, and most puzzling results?  Share in the comments!