For campaign watchers, Florida's Republican presidential primary was the big draw yesterday, but there was another noteworthy race on the other side of the country: a U.S. House special election in Oregon's 1st congressional district.
Just two weeks ago, the National Republican Congressional Committee took an interest in the race, airing attack ads against Democratic candidate Suzanne Bonamici. The GOP candidate, Rob Cornilles, even released an internal poll showing him trailing by only four points.
Yesterday, however, it became clear Republicans were chasing a mirage.
Democrat Suzanne Bonamici swept to victory Tuesday in Oregon's 1st Congressional District, continuing her party's nearly four-decade-long hold on the seat covering the northwestern corner of the state.
With the bulk of ballots counted, Bonamici was defeating Republican Rob Cornilles by about 15 percentage points in the special election to fill the seat left vacant by the resignation of Democrat David Wu in August.
The results in Oregon are likely heartening to Democrats -- a loss would have been characterized as a major setback for the party -- but this leads to a related question: do special election victories offer clues about what's to come in a general election?
Let's flesh this out a bit, looking at the last few cycles. In the 109th Congress (2005 and 2006), going into the November 2006 midterms, there were four U.S. House special elections -- Republicans won three, Democrats won one, and neither party flipped any seats. Did this offer hints about the Democratic wave that would sweep the GOP out of their majorities in both chambers? Obviously not.
In the 110th Congress (2007 and 2008), going into Election Day in November 2008, there were 12 U.S. House special elections -- Republicans won four, Democrats won eight, and Dems successfully turned three "red" seats "blue." Were these Democratic gains an "omen" of things to come? Maybe a little.
But in the 111th Congress (2009 and 2010), going into the 2010 midterms, there were 10 U.S. House special elections -- Republicans won two, Democrats won eight. Of particular interest, from March '09 to May '10, Dems won seven straight special elections, even flipping one district Republicans had held for more than a century. Did this offer evidence of the burgeoning Republican wave? Not even a little.
So far in the 112th Congress (2011 and 2012), there have been five U.S. House special elections -- Republicans have won two, Democrats have won three, and each have flipped a seat previously held by the other party. What does this tell us about the 2012 elections? Not much.
That's not to say, however, that the Oregon race is irrelevant. Sarah Kliff noted yesterday that much of this special election was focused on Medicare -- and that's going to matter a great deal in November.
Cornilles has indeed gone after Bonamici and her support for the Affordable Care Act, accusing her in a recent television ad (above) of "supporting a plan that takes $500 billion from Medicare, raises taxes and hurts seniors." The Democratic Party of Oregon has countered by linking Cornilles to the Budget Chair Rep. Paul Ryan's budget that would transform Medicare into a voucher program. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee here in Washington has also advanced similar attacks.
Fact-checking organizations have scrutinized both claims and found them not completely accurate. Nevertheless, these look to be the messages that the parties have settled on, and for good political reason. To describe Medicare as a politically fraught issue would be an understatement: Changes to the program are rarely, if ever, a winning issue. Kaiser Family Foundation tracking polls have found 43 percent of seniors believe Medicare will be "worse off" after the Affordable Care Act. Likewise, just 30 percent of seniors support restructuring Medicare into a system where they use subsidies to shop for private coverage, as the Ryan plan would do.
It makes the Oregon race a test case of sorts, with both parties giving their Medicare messages a trial run. Democrats have to be far more satisfied than Republicans with the results.
Leave a Comment:
More people are now paying attention to the following quotes during the GOP side of the presidential race.
The punch line ...
While GOP candidates and pundits are obviously very intelligent ...
... it is also fairly obvious that GOP candidates know that their voting base is not bright.
And they are opening exploiting that.
So ... how long until the bright people begin abandoning the GOP to avoid being confused with the others?
Maybe Dems can invest a little money into getting the word out about what is and isn't in the AHCA. If people would understand it a little better, they wouldn't dislike it. After all, polls show they like what is in it, just not the act itself.
Fox and friends did a good job of scaring the crap out of people. It's too bad that few are taking the time to fix the misconceptions.
And myself, who is politically astute and aware, didn't know what was available to me. I had previously gone to my state's website but had not seen anything about the pre-existing condition option. Had it not been for Steve's link yesterday, I thought I would have to wait until 2014. I don't.
And to the person who scolded me yesterday, you're completely wrong. I support the AHCA completely and understand that politically, nothing else could have been done. I am a realist, not someone who wants it all and wants it right now (well, I wouldn't mind it all and now, but, I know that wasn't going to happen).
Dems need to do a better job when someone like me, who reads politics and news vociferously every single day got something so wrong, how many others have it completely wrong.
Dems...FIX THIS!
Hi MsJoanne,
Pleased to meet you. Good post. Lots of enthusiasm and thought. I like that.
Would you please explain ACHA or provide a link? Lots of strange things show up when you search this so I couldn't follow the discussion and I couldn't locate it in TRMS blog area.
I hope this finds everyone well.
- Greg
AHCA is the acronym I use for the Affordable Health Care Act (otherwise known as ObamaCare, a moniker which, by the way, I love. Let it forever be known that the Democrat, Barack Hussein Obama, made health care affordable and obtainable for all, and the GOP did nothing but lie and try to repeal it. ObamaCare 4EVER!! Sorry, got off on a tangent there. :-)
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/ This is from HealthCare.gov (I know nothing of this site, but they have what is supposed to be the full law PDF there. I do not endorse this site as I have not read the any information at the above link...just sayin'. I was just looking for a link to the full act.)
This is from the White House site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview
And thanks for the kind words. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance, too.
The actual name of the law is Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
Pleased to meet you too.
One thing I am very disappointed with is that the Republican health care debate has made people forget the this created mandatory coverage at the state level that low income individuals can access (important for unemployed).
This helps prevent inner city hospital facilities from going bankrupt, which has been one of the most horrific outcomes of Republican policies.
The right reminds us of that funniest punch line ever in politics--Nixon's "I am not a crook".
They have revealed their true nature and all that is left is the question "why are there still republican voters?"
Paul
We have come so far since then haven't we?
I'm waiting for Romney's inevitable, "I am not a robot, and I have always stated clearly and consistently that I am a robot."
he looks like a telfunken U49
smiling a Zappa think. long live the memory of Frank
To be fair I only ever remember seeing one election ad and it was against Cornilles. If I didn't get the ballot things in the mail and live next door to a Democratic campaign strategist I wouldn't know that these elections were even going on.
I don't beleive there were any attack ads but I could be wrong. I only saw one TV ad on the state channels, but it was a whirlwind campaign on a shoestring budget and I was very busy making robocalls. I am really suprised you did not get a call. Your neighbor did a good job getting the important information out to you.
Thank you for your vote and thank goodness for Oregon mail in vote.
Quite honestly Sal I didn't understand the ad so it might not have been an attack ad. It wasn't funded by or sponsored by any candidate: it was a PAC ad. I assumed it was an attack ad because the attack ads always put the candidate they're attacking against black background and then have the candidate appear in black and white. The ad had him saying a quote over and over again- cannot remember what it was now (this is how little I pay attention to attack ads, heh)- and then was showed statements by the local press about how he was lying. I think his statement was about Medicare, but I didn't give it enough attention to really know. Anyways I wasn't trying to imply that Suzanne had a better negative ad campaign. My point was that I didn't see a whole lot of campaigning regarding the election so I don't know how accurately you could really say we reflect the rest of the nation. That's why I was saying had it not been for the fact that we're a mail-in state (thank god!) and I just happen to have an active Democratic neighbor who makes sure I'm always informed about what's going on, I would've completely missed the election. This, to me, is an important issue to make note of because roughly 2/3rds of the population will not vote in off-season elections. A lot of that has to do w/ restrictive measures regarding voting and w/ lack of information. It shows a huge gap we have between communicating to the public about elections and issues. It also shows why someone could inaccurately claim that Suzanne wants to cut 500$ billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare and why someone in the population would be inclined to believe it.
And no I didn't get a robocall, but I sure did vote ;-)
The one attack ad against Bonamici that I saw suggested that Bonamici would raise taxes since she didn't vote to cut taxes ever. It really was a weak ad. I do hope she is able to get her feet wet and, depending upon how she does, I'll probably vote for her come November.
The Bonamici-Cornilles race probably doesn't say much about what will happen this fall. Though, had Cornilles won, Dems might have had some additional things to worry about.
Bonamici was a superior candidate, and was far more in tune with OR-1 residents. Results usually depend upon how Washington County's liberal-to-moderate Republicans vote, and Cornilles was well to their right.
Most voters in Oregon, as is true elsewhere, have figured out that most House members will vote with their party on key issues. Thus, no matter who the candidates are, they're really voting for the party.
Are things in politics much too fluid to make predictions?
I live in what used to be Dennis Hastert's district. The district had Republicans in Congress going back to at least the 40s, perhaps the 50s.
Hastert resigned early in 2007. Special election put Bill Foster (D) into the seat. This was at a time when the country was fed up with Bush and the Republicans. He followed that in 2008 retaining his seat. It helped Foster that his opponent, Oberweiss, had lost every election he had ever been in and was considered a racist.
In 2010 he ran against Randy Hultgren. Former State Senator who essentially ran as a tea party candidate. Foster had the endorsement of two of the biggest REPUBLICAN papers. The Chicago Tribune and the Daily Herald. The tea party won out.
So how would you extrapolate all of this to mean anything for other elections?
With the new district carved out by the Democrats, the Republicans won't do a repeat. The Tea party wins were anomolies; with the likes of Joes Walsh making a complete idiot out of himself, I doubt that any of them will return to Congress from Illinois.
But if memory serves, during the 2009-2010 Congress, no attention was paid to the special elections won by Democrats, yet the two that republicans were heralded by the media as a sign that the love for Obama is waning. It must be waning. People, wake up, it's waning. And then in 2010 the Dems got trounced. Eh, I'm sure it was a coincidence.
Yup, memory definitely serves. That is exactly what happened.
And for you guys who are new to Steve, he used to track word counts from major news outlets on the varied health care rulings. It was something like 5-1 in word count (for rulings against the health care act) with all the Against rulings above the fold or on initial pages, vs. a paragraph or two buried in section Z59 (probably under an ad for Viagra).
Most pundits are trying to prognosticate what will happen based on historical data. I would suggest that we toss the historical data because there are a lot more variables in the upcoming elections. The country has gone through a major recession greater than any other in current history. The Tea Party is another variable because they took a lot of seats in Congress. If we were to predict what will happen, then we need to look at each Congressional district and state to determine voter turnout based on current primary participation, popular opinion on what issues the voters in each district think is most important, and opinions regarding their current representative. Unless some major event intervenes, it would be safe to say that the upcoming elections are going to be close. Both parties have issues with voter turnout because of the dissatisfaction with current candidates in many areas.
My gut says the Tea Party's days are numbered (which could be indigestion, who knows). Fewer and fewer people relate to the nutbaggers, and then it's become almost exclusively GOPers only who care for them (see FL exit polling which showed many primary voters still liked them some teabaggers, but nationally, not so much). Ron Paul or Donny Trump as a 3rd party candidate would kill the GOP.
What a lovely thought.
p.s. Go Cubbies! My dad was a season ticket holder for years and years. I spent lots of time at Wrigley when I was younger.
I think the TP days are numbered and they will cease to be a major force in the House and Senate. But I don't think they are going to go away on the state level. States in the East and Midwest are going to toss the TP. Republicans have lost ground in these areas and the TP is going to hurt the local Republican party. The TP will still have influence in the South and West except the Pacific coast.
The Cubs are going on 104 years since they won a World Series. No matter how bad the team is, the fans turn out because Wrigley Field is part of the attraction. Opening Day meant my high school would be half empty and people would play hooky from their jobs. I remember freezing my behind on many of those days.
But how much of the TP is the SoCon in the south? They will never vote Dem until Fox is gone and they see beyond fetuses, which means never. And the west...SoCon, nationalists and racial xenophobes, not all inclusive of the population at large. Texas is licking its wounds from the sad display of ignorance from its leaders, first Dubya and now Perry. I think TX has a chance of seeing blue in November.
My dad was a Die Hard. I remember my high school days of sleeping out at the park to get opening day tix. He finally got season tix when he retired - at which point I wasn't too interested in sleeping on the cement anywhere anymore (no concert tix, no ball game tix). I want indoor plumbing! :-)
The South will never vote Dem. However, the rising Hispanic population can change elections in Texas and the Southwest. If Texas falls to the Dems, the rest of the South will be isolated and impotent as a political force because the only large southern state left would be Florida and even that state is not a safe Republican state.
It just feels like the GOP is going to get wiped out this year. Just a feeling based on my 53 years on the planet and participating in every election since I turned 18.
@randy: Picking up your thought, "...GOP is going to get wiped out...." Have you been noting the new (to me anyway) discussions from various pundits re: Destruction of Rep Party as we have known it? Basic thought seems to be, Conservatives in the Party have lost control to Extremists in the Party. No compromise within party. Similar in many ways to departure of Dixi-crats from Dem Party in '60's. With potentially equal long term effects. Anyway...such thought certainly supports your feelings....
I agree, Rusty. I'm 78 and I've voted in every election since 1955, (I couldn't vote till I was 21) and I've voted for as many Republicans as Democrats in my time. I vote for the person, not the party, and always have. I tend to Democratic ideals, or the "liberal" side, but I am a conservative regarding fiscal issues. That sometimes gives me pause, and I have to think things through thoroughly before voting. However, this election will not be a problem because the GOP has put up so many cartoon characters who actually think they will be elected that it makes me laugh in unbelief. I was a Hillary supporter in 2008, and was disappointed that she didn't get the nomination, but I decided I couldn't vote for a senile McCain. So, I voted for Obama because I "hoped" he'd be able to make some progress after 8 years of Bush. He's not tough enough for me though, he's too polite! However, I prefer his calm demeanor to the GOP radicalism.
Mike, they lost control when the manufactured Teabagger Express bus was invented by the Koch's (and FreedomWorks) in opposition to, well, everything, and then they completely lost control of exactly what they were hating.
Ask a bagger about their taxes and they will say they went up. They didn't.
Ask a bagger about healthcare, and they will say it's a government takeover. It's not.
They are the lowest of low information voters. Ignorance and an unwillingness to listen to anything not provided by Fox. And the GOP **still** lost control.
@MsJoanne
... not to mention that the Repugs have an almost unreal talent to get 'lesser educated' folks locked-in to voting full ticket over emo issues like abortion, etc.
I never could understand how poor southerners could vote Republican. Doesn't make sense... everything the republicans do takes food, money or benefits from them...
just saying.... odd, really odd
I remembering listening to NPR's Neil Conan interview Karl Rove about the polls showing that the republicans did not have the tidalwave of support that Karl and other GOP mouth pieces were insisting they had. Karl sounded so smug sure of himself -"Well, Niel, I have a different set of data from polls than you do and I KNOW we are going to sweep the election."
I thought at the time - "Pride goeth before a fall." I had hoped that that fall would have been that year - and a hard fall at that. But not quite. I do feel for the moderate Republicans - most are thoughtful individuals. It took 30+ years for the extreme republican idealogy to take hold and infect society. It will take some time to cure the causes of the disease, though Obama has tried to treat some of the symptoms of the disease. Like most diseases, this one has plateaued and the extreme republicans are beginning to fall off on their own. The immune system is beginning to awaken.
I used to choose candidates based upon their record of co-operation, level-headed bills introduced, and philosophy on various issues. Those days seem to be gone and now I have to vote straight ticket Democrat(which is not a bad thing, but it does limit the ability to choose someone I think would do the best job of service).
Oregon has mail in or drop off ballots, with a Democate as Sec of State they have processed over 15M ballots over the years with only 50 cases of mis use. Some states have elected Republician Sec of State and they have now changed the laws requiring ID cards, which has been a problem for older and minority Americians.
Now we will send Suzanne to Congress to actualy work for those voters that she has worked for as a State Senator.
well one thing for sure she is the first winner of the 2012 race.
An NW Oregonian voting Democratic is about as newsworthy and surprising as a West Texan voting Republican. There is nothing to see here.
Medicare/Medicaide is the most important issue concerning the 2012 elections. Well, that and Social Security, and jobs and.... but we are talking Medicare/Medicaide here.
The one important issue I would like to stress here is that Medicaide Federal monies are given as a match 1:1+ to each state dependent on how much $ the individual state devotes to Medicaide funded services (such as nursing homes, homehealth care, etc.) If the state cuts their funding of Medicaide this means less federal funding to that state to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled. Because this federal money has already been in the Fed Budget (OMB) it is irresponsible for the state to cut back on their projected Medicaide Budget when clearly cuts can be made elsewhere like tax breaks to the wealthiest people in your individual states. And that is just really mean.
The AP story was up to here in NATIONAL DEMOCRAT LIBERAL BIG UNION EAST COAST MONEY putting up a million bux to beat Cornie. And, as usual for AP, not a syllable about Cornie's campaign money, such as how much or where it came from. AP: Fox Lite.
A vote for any Republican is really a vote for Grover Norquist, their Grand Puppeteer.
As a Democrat in a Red Southern State, I can tell you that people who watch Fox are so uninformed. It makes me ill to think that these thoughtless people (literally have no minds of their own) follow the Repub Herd like sheep. Only they are leading the country to slaughter. We have got to get the news out about Obamacare. People around here are still looking for that fake birth certificate. :-( Sigh...
As a Southern Democrat in a RED State, I can tell you that Foxnoise is on in every restaurant, airport, bus station, etc. We have the most uneducated watching the most uneducated "News" in the world. It is so disturbing that we still have "Birthers" determined to undermine everything Obama has done for us just because they don't like having a black President. Yes, I said it. It is unspoken, but it is something that is so "in your face", you can't miss it. Sigh...
Ever get the feeling that you are being ear raped?
Eww!
I voted for Obama because I "hoped" he'd be able to make some progress after 8 years of Bush. He's not tough enough for me though, he's too polite! However, I prefer his calm demeanor to the GOP radicalism.
_____
That is so well said it is lovely! And what a relief after G. DUI Bush*t.
I prefer both that he is polite, and calm. And has the smile of an optimist.
He's the first intelligent and competent president we've had since Clinton.
The Republican candidates are not the brighest bulbs!