2013: The Off-Year Elections that Redefined Both Political Parties

While listening to the coverage of the 2013 Elections, something struck me. Among a litany of local races, judges, municipal leaders, school board council members and the like, a few races stood out and captured national attention.

The biggest story of them all probably was the Virginia gubernatorial race which was exemplary of politics in this era - for all the wrong reasons. On one hand, you had a Republican candidate whose social views were slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun and whose recent qualification for the job was an involvement in an administration rife with corruption. His Democratic opponent’s main virtue was that he wasn’t the Republican. A third party candidate should have been viable, but in a race awash with out-of-state money, the unqualified Libertarian candidate was shut out and only got a spoiler’s percentage of the vote. It made me glad I don’t live in Virginia.

The Virginia race was stink on ice, politics as usual in a state that boarders the nation’s capital which has also embodied all that is wrong with politics in this country today.

However, the other big stories in this off-year election were not close races, but unlikely blow out victories.

New Jersey is a reliable Blue State that the Republican incumbent won by over 22 points. How did Chris Christie manage to be so popular in the Garden State? He is not the typical Republican, at least on the national stage. He is a self-avowed moderate in a party that seems to be racing to out-purity one another (literally in many cases since “primaried” is no longer dealing with birds and RINO is not a misspelling of an odd-toed ungulate).

Christie is a Republican with ideas that the right embraces, of course, because he still has an R- by his name. But unlike the modern crop of Republicans, he doesn’t kowtow to the extremist wings of his party. He seems equally combative dealing with those who feel he should as the teacher he undressed while campaigning.

In rather high-profile moves, he put state before party, literally embracing the pariah President while dealing with the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, and slamming those who questioned him about it. He also finally stopped fighting marriage equality in his state at a time when his continued staunch defense would have looked good come 2016 caucus time.

Even if you forget the high profile stuff, Christie has managed to lead his state and work with a state legislature that is overwhelmingly Democratic. A willingness to work with the other side is not a hallmark of the modern day Republican though one could argue that Christie had no choice in a state like Jersey, it’s a fact that it is the unwillingness of Republicans to compromise in national politics that has caused much of the gridlock in DC.

And if Christie is not a typical Republican, New York City’s mayor elect Bill de Blasio is also the diametric opposite of a Democratic party which has fled to the center to fill the void left when the Republicans fled to the right, leaving their far left representatives marginalized in the political process.

He won by nearly 50 points which wouldn’t be nearly as remarkable had he not been the first Democrat to win the office since David Dinkins left Gracie Mansion two decades ago. More remarkably he is the first mayor to really embrace the term Liberal since John Lindsay, whose tenure goes so far back he was a Republican! (Ed Koch was a Democrat but nobody who lived through New York City during his tenure would call him Liberal; one could say he was ahead of the pack with regard to his shift towards the center-right).

He won by a margin unheard of in modern politics for a major office and did so on a populist message that addressed income inequality at a time when nobody outside of the odd Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, dared broach the subject. Tea Partiers got elected; Occupy Wall Street got rejected, even by Democrats who were scared shitless to be associated with that movement. Yet while de Blasio might not have actually pitched a tent there, his rhetoric has shown empathy towards those who shared the anger and frustrations of those who did.

The far left has decried a lack of representation in a country where a firm centrist such as Obama is deemed a radical Liberal Socialist. In mayor of the biggest city in the country - a city reacting to three terms of oligarchy rule from a billionaire who wanted the city to be a playground for the uber-rich rather than a metropolis with a teeming working class - they finally have that voice as a part of the national discourse.

These two politicians actually share some of their constituents since so many New Jersey residents commute to Manhattan for work. That is how close they are geographically. Yet they couldn’t be more different with regard to how they stand out when compared to Gene Eric ® or (D) on the national stage. And make no mistake - these two are on the national stage even if they were elected to rule over one of 50 states, one of countless cities.

When you add in the mandate-like numbers that heralded their elections, is it possible that these two men will herald in a shift to the left for both parties at a time when they are both farther to the right than they ever have been?

Could these two politicians usher in a Republican party that wants government to work and a Democratic party that wants it to work for everyone?

I think it’s possible. Of course, I am a hopeless optimist, someone who votes diligently and strives to make a difference in my community and among my friends and peers. I have seen where the dysfunctional Republican party and the lack of a true Left have left us, and I cannot stand it.

Of course, this could all be an aberration, a Northeastern bias of mine. And it can all blow away. What if New York crumbles under the new Liberal regime? What if Christie cannot make it out of primaries and caucuses in states where Rick Santorum is more likely to win than a fat centrist from New Jersey?

It all could be nothing. But, imagine the possibilities…

Nah. The Northeast isn’t typical of most of America, and NYC most certainly is not.

We still have the electoral college which gives rural states more say in the election of presidents, and gerrymandered Congressional districts that ensures most districts are safe for one party or the other, and a primary system that means that the party faithful have an outsized say in which candidates run in the general elections. I don’t see how you are going to change the politicians unless you change the system that produces them.

I just pointed out how these two politicians are different than their parties have been churning out for some time now. They are products of the same system that elected Bloomberg and all the other governors last I checked, yet markedly different as I explained.

Also, I am not suggesting that these two men themselves will change things, that they have to go onto greater things, which seems to be something you are ascribing to my post. I am suggesting that the success of these two people representing relatively large swaths of America - a whole state and the biggest city - can inspire people in other states and other cities that we don’t need a race to the right anymore.

Parties are national entities, and these two are products of a very small geographical section of the US. I would not use NYC or New Jersey as bell weathers of the US as a whole. I think Virginia is a much better proxy, and we see what happened there.

If you think NYC and New Jersey are representative of the US as a whole, can you explain why? It’s not obvious.

Local politics is overwhelmingly personality politics. Not only can’t you extrapolate from one local election to other parts of the country, you can’t even extrapolate from that local election to the next one without an incumbent.

If you think otherwise, please extrapolate from Rudy Giuliani to Michael Bloomberg to Bill de Blasio.

Or even the same election. In 2000, Pennsylvania voted for Al Gore and reelected Rick Santorum. There was at least 5 to 7 percent of the population that cast a ballot for both Gore and Santorum. How can that be explained by anything other than local politics?

Moved at the request of the OP.

Nothing’s been redefined.

On the GOP side, neither Cuccinelli’s loss nor Christie’s win contains any lessons that the GOP mainstream is going to listen to. On the Dem side, an actual liberal’s ability to win in NYC changes nothing, nor does the victory of a total sleazeball and corporate whore running as a Dem in Virginia.

2014 will have pretty much the same battle lines as 2012 did.

I give the 2013 elections a FONSI (Finding Of No Significant Impact). Virginia Republicans throw away a winnable race by nominating a whack-a-doodle dandy. New Jersey residents happen to like a guy who’s a Republican. Republicans aren’t going to stop nominating nutjobs nor are they going to embrace a Northeastern moderate for president. The 2014 crystal ball is for the moment cloudy.

I never requested that but it’s not a big deal to me that you did.

Maybe your left ear didn’t but the rest of you did?

As much as I wish this year heralded a change, I don’t see it happening.

Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t make any sense out of this sentence. Want to help me out?

Might have something to do with this.

I don’t know what the word “undressed” is doing there (other than some fantasy slipping out) but the point was understood by me as being that Christie (“He” in the context) is equally combative dealing with those who feel he should kowtow to the Tea Party extremist types as he was at dealing with the teacher he had a publicized run-in with.

2013 taught us that pretending to be black can win you an election if you’re a racist white republican. Can’t wait to see Ted Cruz in blackface come 2016!

RTF-You’re right that the GOP won’t listen, but this year shows they certainly should.

I don’t need to. You conveniently did that for me:

Not that I think New York will crumble. But Christie ain’t winning Mississippi.

Christie is an interesting case. He basically rode a arrogant, populist, “no bullshit” personality to an easy victory against a weak, underfunded opponent, so I don’t think you can extrapolate too much from that election. If Christie wants to be president, he has several hurdles ahead of him:
[ul]
[li]His softness on social issues is now conventional wisdom. That, the fact he’s a Northeasterner, and his embrace of Obama during Hurricane Sandy will not play well with the Southern/Tea Party base of the GOP. Regardless of the value in his “moderate” credentials, he simply can’t ignore the base (no matter how nuts he privately thinks they are), so IMO he has to address each of these points separately if he’s to have any chance. Best would be to start some public feud with Obama over a policy point–Obamacare is the obvious one if it’s still a hot-button by 2015–and don’t pull a Giuliani and think you can just run on your general awesomeness without diving into real conservative policy.[/li][li]His fiscal credentials are a bit of a shell game. He’s trumpeted things like his cancellation of a Hudson River tunnel project to halt runaway costs–obviously to burnish his image as an economic conservative–but the fact is he’s raised overall spending in his state by 14% during his term, and all of that relies on gimmicks like delaying property tax rebates until the next fiscal year or diverting money from the turnpike tolls into the general fund. He gets away with it by submitting state budgets that assume a far more robust growth in state revenue than the economy can justify, then using these gimmick to shore up the difference before the end of the year. But the danger is that sooner or later he’ll run up against a fiscal issue he can’t finesse, and that would be disasterous for his candidacy.[/li][*]His brash temperment can be an asset in connecting with rank-and-file voters, but it’s not going to work that well in scaring up campaign funds, especially in the primary. Wall Street does seem to love the guy, so maybe he can find his own Sheldon Adelson to keep him afloat until he seals the nomination. But cozying up to billionaires doesn’t mesh well with his populist persona, and given the way he treated that teacher during the campaign, I suspect his opponents will have no trouble getting him to gaffe his way out of the nomination if he can’t control his temper.[/ul]

I think the answer we’re seeking lies in the 2012 election. Mitt Romney was obviously the least conservative of the Republican clown car that was the GOP presidential candidates, just like Christie may very well be in 2016. Things that would have and did hurt Romney still did not completely derail his candidacy. Christie may be the same way. So how did Romney get the nomination and can Christie do the same?