The results are finally in, and the 2013 election is finally over. What, you might ask, is the big takeaway we should learn from this experience?
You might need to wait a bit to find out. While some pundits and news outlets have tried to make big news out of some of the races that garnered national attention, others don't have a clear message to take away about the state of the country or about what might happen in 2014. Let's wade into a couple of the high-profile races and see why.
One of the biggest headline-making elections was the New Jersey gubernatorial race. Chris Christie secured an easy victory over the Democrat challenger, and was praised by news outlets including The New York Times: "In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by over 700,000, Mr. Christie won a majority of the votes of women and Hispanics and made impressive inroads among younger voters and blacks – groups that Republicans nationally have struggled to attract."
The Times also detailed the numerous ways in which Christie's win would position him strategically for a possible 2016 presidential bid, as he will also take charge of the Republican Governor's Association at the beginning of the new term and thus be able to build strategic relationships across state boundaries. Many view Christie as the Republican Party's answer to more conservative officeholders, including Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.
Another gubernatorial race which has gained national attention is in Virginia, where Republican incumbent Ken Cuccinelli lost by a less than three-point margin to his Democrat challenger, Terry McAuliffe. Cuccinelli's loss is surprising in no small part because this breaks Virginia's thirty-year tradition of electing governors that are from the opposite party as the sitting President of the United States. It also is surprising because of the history of controversy surrounding McAuliffe who, as a former campaign fundraiser for the Clintons and a former chairman of the Democratic Party, was involved in a string of controversies involving companies that he helped found receiving government favors and lucrative contracts.
Some in the media have tried to point to these races as a reaction to the recent rise in prominence of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. The Times certainly thought so, as it called Chris Christie the Republicans' "foremost proponent of pragmatism over ideology." However, there are some important factors to consider before we all decide to enthrone Christie and dump the modern Tea Party into Boston Harbor.
First, as much as Chris Christie's win in New Jersey is significant for Chris Christie, it appears to be a flash in the pan nationally. While Christie does certainly have high favorability in New Jersey and in certain segments of the GOP, he currently does not have the level of popularity that he needs to succeed nationwide. A recent national poll by NBC News, which asked respondents to choose from a list of potential candidates and identify which one they would vote for, has Chris Christie losing to Hillary Clinton by a considerable ten point margin.
A Quinnipiac poll yields similar results, with Clinton beating Christie at 49 percent to 36 percent. Even an exit poll in New Jersey, where Christie's fame is greatest, had him trailing Clinton by four points. If Christie can't statistically beat a potential opposing candidate at this point, then the GOP needs to be cautious moving forward about choosing their candidates.
Another issue is the third party voter split in the Virginia Race. A Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, ran in addition to Cuccinelli and McAuliffe and took approximately seven percent of the vote. This makes the outcome even less clear for two primary reasons. First, investigative reporting by TheBlaze uncovered that Sarvis's campaign received major donations from Joe Liemandt, who was a major campaign bundler for President Barack Obama. This revelation suggests that external Democratic Party intervention helped keep Sarvis's campaign afloat and draw votes away from Cuccinelli.
Second, Virginian voters themselves appear to be much more polarized than expected. Exit polling conducted by Edison Media Research and published in TheWashington Post revealed that seven percent of Virginia voters supported Sarvis. While normally it would be assumed that libertarian voters would back a conservative candidate when other desirable options weren't available, a surprising five percent of voters said they would entirely refrain from voting rather than vote for a different candidate. It is unclear how this polarization would have played out in a federal election, as there are rarely any viable third party candidates, so it would be improper to assign this libertarian voter bloc to either major party prematurely.
Simply put, there are too many unknown factors to consider in processing out what the midterm election means about the state of the American electorate or about the future of the GOP going into 2016.
Christie may not be the Republican godsend that many want him to be, and the McAuliffe victory in Virginia is simply too intricate to offer a neat and tidy postmortem judgment.
What's the real takeaway from the 2013 election? Wait until 2014 to learn more.
David Giffin is an Alumnus of the Masters program in Theological Studies at the Candler School of Theology and is currently attending law school at Wake Forest University. He is from Charleston, Ill.
Photo courtesy of Veni Markovski
