Super Tuesday Takeaways: Really Just Average

Another election day come and gone, this one with primaries in California, Alabama, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, Iowa, Mississippi, and New Jersey. Yet despite the large proportion of states, I found myself coming out of this primary significantly less riled than two weeks ago and certainly less than the week before that. We saw interesting results, but none which provoked any particular shocks or assuaged any lingering fears, except for the CA Jungle Primaries for Democrats. But that is far from a clear victory. Speaking of which…

Mixed Bag in CA leaves energy still on Dem Side

Take a big breath Dems, because your shot at the majority just averted one of its most dangerous inhibitors: A Lockout. Long story short, California is a state which functions via Jungle Primary. In the primary, all candidates for an office are listed and the two with the most vote share proceed to a general election, regardless of party affiliation. This means that it is perfectly possible that in a blue state like California, two Democrats of differing ideology could advance. This is what happened during the 2016 Senate Race (between Rep. Loretta Sanchez and now-Senator Kamala Harris), but the opposite seemed to be in play this cycle. Because of the explosion of Democrat enthusiasm, Team Blue saw a stunning amount of candidates enter the race in both open and incumbent held seats. The problem in open seats and even some incumbent held (see Rohrabacher) was that if even one other Republican was on the ballot, two Team Red candidates could get higher vote totals than dozens of individual Democrats. Despite this fear, other than possibly CA-10 (mail-in ballots mean the full results in tightly contested races will not be known for weeks), Democrats avoided this worst case scenario in their prime pickups, CA-48, CA-45, CA-25, CA-21, CA-49, and CA-39. Still, these seats have Republican lineage and toppling certain incumbents will be a challenge moving forward, especially with two positive developments on the GOP Side: First, a Republican made the runoff for CA governor. For the longest time, it seemed as if the 2016 Governor’s Race would come down to establishment vs. progressive Dem via Former Mayor of LA and businessman Antonio Villaraigosa and Gavin Newsom, the longtime frontrunner and current lieutenant governor. However, a late Trump endorsement bolstered a rise in Republican John Cox, who ultimately trailed Newsom by 26.2%-33.4%. Don’t be confused, Newsom is a heavy favorite, especially in a state where Trump got less than 33% of the vote. But the real victory for Republicans here is having a GOP name on the statewide ballot. People obviously show up for higher profile races and having a Republican running for governor means Team Red will come out and likely provide additional votes for the endangered seats listed above. This is not the only victory for Republicans, as we found out that the gas tax is politically potent. At almost $5 a gallon, Republicans were correct in foreseeing this as another GOTV imitative for their base. This was demonstrated in the successful recall of State Senator Josh Newman over his support of such, which also deprives the Democrats of their 2/3 majority in the Senate (and thereby additional powers and unilateral tax changes without Republicans). With a gas tax repeal on the November ballot and a GOP candidate for governor, it is safe to say that a bluer California will not completely depreciate Republican turnout-a turnout that could still make a difference for the House. However, I would still see this environment as neutral. For one, there will be no Republican Senate candidate (Feinstein significantly leads what was once a seemingly strong liberal alternative, Kevin de Leon), and for two, many of the above districts still voted for Clinton, meaning that a down ballot effect for the Trump administration may be inevitable even with potent GOP turnout. For these reasons, I still see California’s overall statewide mood to be attuned with the national, and very democratic, environment. If this will ultimately pull Democrats through still remains to be seen. Republicans like Mimi Walters have been more optimistic recently because of both their own polling and the president’s approval uptick via a strong economy and favorable North Korea coverage (plus overall Republican vote shares were often at or above 50% total). This state’s House seats will certainly be a fight to the finish.

Swing in North Jersey: Republicans Must be Vigilant, Menendez only Maybe

The presidential conundrum for House Republican districts is just as stark in New Jersey, particularly Northern Jersey. In such districts as NJ-2, NJ-11, NJ-7, Hillary Clinton either came close, or open seats with strong candidates point to possible pickups. Considering recent history, it would both be stunning to see New Jersey without any House Republicans and yet also highly plausible. Strong candidates such as Jeff Van Drew point to races that in this environment increasingly favor Democrats. These highly educated areas just are no longer as strong for Republicans bound by Trump baggage. A political restructuring takes time, but much like California, stark partisan changes from year to year may point to a quick electoral reckoning, especially in open seats or dated incumbents. And as good as this is for Democrats, most Jersians also had their eyes on the stunning underperformance of incumbent Bob Menendez in his senate primary. The longtime senator, soaked in a corruption scandal that ultimately ended up being dismissed after a hung jury, seemed to be in for smooth sailing in an incredibly Democratic state whose leaders (@Governor Murphy) looked past his improprieties. Yet his primary challenger, Lisa McCormick, ran incredibly well (62-38) for being a no-one, proving that voters are less forgiving of their senator’s accused actions. To be fair, some of this could also be explained by the strong showing of female candidates, but most analysts see this as a firm rebuke and embarrassing election win for Menendez. But will it affect him in a general one? Ultimately, most say no. For one, think back to how well women Democrat candidates have been doing in general-McCormick may have just got unexpectedly caught in this effect. Previous races have shown that voters frequently vent frustration in a primary only to come home in the general, and a state like New Jersey need not many coming home for a Democratic win. The Trump effect alongside this means Menendez is likely safe but any further corruption scandals or stunning gaffes could at least force the Dems to spend money on this race. And the dollar sign is a precious commodity when so many other senate seats are already in play. But with the equally no-name characterization of his Republican opponent, Bob Hugin, this is unlikely.

Iowa: Can Dems Really Be on the Right Track

I believe the most troubling narrative for Democrats is still the unwritten one for Iowa. Holding as recently as 3 House seats in 2010, they are now done to one with few statewide executive positions (and much less judiciary with the startling recall of 3 Dem judges over an early gay marriage decision). This has greatly wrecked party strength and killed a once strong brand over the years, arguably with the final nail in the coffin being the loss of the resilient Democratic state senate in 2016. Democrats are very optimistic they have strong candidates, and their chosen choices did indeed prove victorious in the primaries, but I am skeptical of their appeal. For one, this is the type of state where I feel out-of-mainstream Bernie Dems could do well in (those candidates were the ones who lost). This white economically liberal politic is very enticing for ancestral Dems and recall Bernie did almost win the primary before his brand had truly caught on (if anything, it is what started it). I feel the chosen House candidates will seem very bland for voters who are used to electing uniqe personalities…and then never stop electing them. Seriously, once you win one election in Iowa, you have won them all. Chuck Grassley has been elected 7 times, and before Joni Ernst, Tom Harkin did 5 times (true, he retired over uncertainty in his reelection, but history will never know). Such is so for most other statewide positions. The only person to lose election (judiciary aside) recently, was incumbent Gov Chet Culver, but even then, he lost to longtime political figure and previous-governor Terry Branstad (who recently left to become Ambassador to China, leaving Kim Reynolds in his stead). Ultimately, when you craft a winning brand in Iowa, it sticks forever. I do wonder if Dems can overcome this unique style with merely strong candidates alone. This is one state that celebrates the unconventional (see Ernst’s hog ad), and I don’t know if Dems really have that to offer this cycle. With its increasingly Red tint anyway, Team Blue needs to temper their expectations. Maybe in a strong wave, House candidates can do well and Governor Reynolds is vulnerable (like Luther Strange, she is an incumbent in name only, but it will take more than just good Generic Ballot numbers for it to carry over. Rating agencies may disagree, but one mustn’t easily forget about the Iowa Difference (Anyone who watches the buildup and crescendo that is the Iowa Caucus knows that).