As I mentioned yesterday, voters in a district nobody particularly cares about (NY-20, which represents Saratoga Springs) are voting in a special election today to replace Kirsten Gillibrand (D) who was appointed by Governor Paterson to fill Hillary Clinton's vacated seat.
Tomorrow morning, whether Democrat Scott Murphy or Republican Jim Tedisco win, we will be bombarded with spin from both sides on why this election either meant great things for their party, or if their guy loses, why this election doesn't really matter.
Here's what we're in for tomorrow:
If Tedisco Wins, the Republicans Will Say: This is proof that the public rejects Obama's stimulus plan and the liberal majority that has taken over Congress! Even in liberal New York, the American public knows the agenda has to be stopped. This is a sign of things to come, on the scale of the 1994 Republican revolution, when the public finally realized what it means to have liberals having unchecked power.
If Tedisco Wins, the Democrats Will Say: Yeah ok Tedisco won. Congrats, but big deal. George W. Bush won the district twice and that there is a party registration advantage of 70K voters for the Republicans. I hope Tedisco enjoys the crappiest office in Longworth and the old desk with the broken leg in the last row of the minority side of the House. If he has any great ideas for fixing the economy, make sure he tells Speaker Pelosi--after all, she still commands a majority that has about 80 more members than his party.
If Murphy Wins, the Democrats Will Say: See, this is the price you Republicans pay for continuing to follow Rush Limbaugh and trying the failed solutions of the past. People are looking for answers on the economy, and you have none. This is a district that you guys had a real shot at, and frankly you blew it because Americans know your leadership has no plan.
If Murphy Wins, the Republicans Will Say: Meh. This was a Democratic seat and it stays a Democratic seat--so nothing has changed from our perspective. Besides, listen, we're the first to say that our party needs to find a better way to articulate our plan for growing the economy. It's a tough environment out there and our party's brand is tainted by some in the party who lost their way. But we never expected to win this district anyway--it's in one of the most liberal states in the nation, Obama won it, and a Democrat has won the Congressional race twice in a row--and by 24 points last time. Even coming as close as we did shows that the Democrats are in trouble.
No Matter Which Candidate Wins, Jerome Will Say: Basically, all of these points have some truth to them. I still think Tedisco will win based on the intensity of opposition to the stimulus (that is, even if a majority support the stimulus, those who intensely oppose it probably outnumber those who intensely support it). Reports today are saying otherwise, however, as the DNC machinery continues to be much more well-oiled, and apparently Tedisco sent text messages to people in the wrong district to vote for him.
So who benefits more from a win? I think it is clearly the Republicans, just to get the psychological edge back by winning just one big race. After the 2004 cycle, the Democrats were in the same funk the Republicans are in now. In early 2005 (I think), there were two close heart-breaking races on the Democratic side. Paul Hackett nearly beat Jeanne Schmidt in OH-02, and Francine Busby nearly beat Brian Bilbray in CA-50. In my memory, only once the Democrats won the Governorship of Virginia in the fall of 2005 fairly handily did the Party remember, "Oh yeah, it is technically possible for us to win elections." And 12 months later, they won back both Houses of Congrses.
Still, the Democrats need to win only in the sense that they don't have to give Republicans the satisfaction of winning one.