A Mass. Senate Race Finally Worth Watching

PrintEmail

Democrats in the liberal fiefdom Massachusetts are alarmed. In fact, they seem so alarmed it's hard to say whether they are concerned that they could lose the open seat bequeathed by Ted Kennedy, or they're just irritated the Republicans have made it an actual contest.
 
Despite the excellent riposte aimed at 'moderator' David Gergen, I'd be extremely surprised if state Senator Scott Brown emerged triumphant in next Tuesday's contest. Although the people of Massachusetts elected Republican governors from 1990 to 2006, they've not elected a GOP Senator for nearly four decades (and a Republican hasn't held the Class I post since Henry Cabot Lodge). Still, even if Brown comes within a few points of Martha Coakley, the GOP will no doubt be pleased with their performance, especially considering the incumbent party had a lead of around thirty points at one stage.
 
And this Massachusetts race may signal a changing tide. Even in the likely event of Coakley holding on by her finger nails, the current polls suggest that the GOP can look forward to an impressive showing in November's mid-terms.
 
After getting trounced by the Democrats in the last two rounds of elections, the Republicans were hardly anxious to get campaigning for 2010. In fact, after the health care debacle most Republicans with whom I spoke expected further Democratic gains in both the House and the Senate. It's quite hard to fathom that these very same individuals are thinking the unthinkable--the prospect of seizing back both Houses.
 
Like Michael Steele (depending on which day of the week you ask him), I find this a little far fetched. But I do expect millions of Americans to vote GOP because of an uneasiness with single party government. It was disastrous under President Bush, and no better under his successor.
 
Add to this Democratic lemmings Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan deciding not to run in what should have been straightforward races. This merely highlights the difficulties the Democratic party is currently facing. Sure, the GOP will look upon the races in Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida (if Marco Rubio wins the primary) with bated breath. Yet, all talk of scalping John Thune in North Dakota or Richard Burr in North Carolina appears to have abated. And any Democrat would be lying if they claimed that a year ago they were expecting competitive races in Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, California, and – the grand prize – Nevada. If defeated, Harry Reid will become the first Senate Majority leader to lose since Ernest McFarlane lost to Barry Goldwater almost seventy years ago.
 
Goldwater’s victory spawned a conservative movement that latterly led to more than three decades of near Republican dominance in the executive office. But with the GOP only now emerging from what appeared to be its death bed, it’s hard to believe this is some grand revival. As Peggy Noonan pointed out last week, the Republican Party may well be in the curious position of winning a thumping victory in November without having earned it, for it’s hard to recall a time when a regime squandered so much political capital as quickly as the current Democratic Party.
 
My prediction is the GOP will make gains in November, but it’s hard to tell whether it can be regarded as more than a hollow victory. As for the Democrats, Tuesday’s result may well point to whether 2010 will be merely a defeat, or the start of a Democratic catastrophe.
 
If you enjoyed this article on the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts, take a look at this post on what's in store for 2010 in politics and beyond.
 
(Photo by Mark Sardella; C.C. 2.0)