While polls show big troubles for President Obama and the Democratic brand nationally, private and public polling suggests that there are at least 15-20 Democratic House incumbents who are either trailing or just barely leading their Republican opponent. This is best environment Republicans have seen in years.
As such, there's no reason that Republicans shouldn't win one or both upcoming special elections to fill Democratic-held open seats in Hawaii's 1st District and Pennsylvania's 12th District.
If Republicans lose both special elections, can they convince donors that they are equipped to deliver in November?
To be sure, there are extenuating circumstances that make both tricky. Hawaii hasn't elected a Republican to Congress since 1988. Yet the process is also ripe for a GOP upset. All candidates run on the same ballot and the top vote-getter wins. A ballot crowded with Democrats -- there are two serious ones interested in running -- only increases the chances they split the vote enough to allow Republican Charles Djou to win.
While western Pennsylvania is friendlier territory for the GOP, the process of picking a nominee to replace John Murtha is fraught with the same kind of political traps that snared Republicans in New York's 23rd District last fall. As in the New York race, the nominee is chosen by committee members and not by primary voters. And it's likely that the special election will be held the same day as the previously scheduled state primaries, meaning there's a chance that the winner of the primary and the winner of the special election could be two different people. Plus, Murtha's widow, Joyce, has been mentioned as a potential candidate. As a longtime fixture in the community (a breast cancer survivor, she has a breast care center in Johnstown named after her), she'd be formidable.
Regardless of the potential hurdles, the GOP has got to start chalking up some wins, and that means the National Republican Congressional Committee is on the spot. Special elections can be messy and complicated. But isn't that why the campaign committees exist: to do the kind of strategic thinking, hustling and outright muscling that needs to get done to win seats?
More and more high-profile Republican leaders are predicting big gains for their party, including an outright flip in the majority. But if Republicans lose both special elections, can they convince their members, donors and political observers that they are equipped to deliver in November? Already, a major concern of GOP insiders is that the NRCC will be woefully outspent by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
In 2006, we learned that money and preparation aren't everything. The environment has an outsized role in determining how many seats a party wins or loses. That year, the NRCC outraised the DCCC by $40 million and outspent the DCCC in independent expenditures by $18 million. That didn't help the Republicans save their majority.
Where money and campaigns matter is on the margins. That's the difference between picking up lots of seats (say, 25-30) and picking up 40 or more. Republicans have lots of good candidates: The Hotline's House Race Hotline editor, Tim Sahd, sees 52 Democratic-held districts where the GOP has at least one serious candidate. Of course, being able to fund all these races is a different matter.
Picking and choosing targets is going to be critical. And given the likelihood of more spending by outside groups, it's going to be tough for many candidates and/or the campaign committees to control a message. This doesn't mean it's impossible. It just requires a disciplined strategy that may make some people unhappy. Saying no isn't fun, but it's what you need to do to win seats.
Meanwhile, Democrats can't rely on the "blame game" to help them in November. In defending the decision to break with a bipartisan jobs bill in favor of a scaled-back version set to appeal to the Democratic base, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, told the Washington Post this weekend that "Republicans will be asked to drop their criticism, which is out there today, and support the bill when the Senate comes back. Otherwise they will seal their role as the party of no." Hmmm. Will it be a bad thing to vote against something that most economists are doubtful will do much to create meaningful job growth? Can't they just say it's a bad bill and then put the onus back on Democrats to prove that it has worked? Voting against a "jobs bill" is only dangerous if the bill actually produces jobs.
In this environment, the blame game strategy isn't going to get anyone very far. House Republicans can't afford to write off special elections losses to "things out of their control." And Democrats have to offer voters more than just "choices" in November. They need to show results.
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
Join the Discussion