Another Republican has been elected in Massachusetts during a special election. Republican Keiko Orrall won a special election to the Massachusetts House, flipping the 12th Bristol seat from Democratic control for the first time in more than 30 years—and Orrall won with 54% of the vote.
Massachusetts is seen as one of the most liberal leaning states in the union. The state is home to world class educational institutions, healthcare for all, gay marriage, pro choice; heck Massachusetts even has an African American Governor and an openly gay US Representative. Yet election after election Republicans are winning seats in the supposed liberal bastion.
Massachusetts had Mitt Romney as its Governor, now Mitt Romney is a running as a presidential candidate for the GOP. However, as many of Romney’s opponents have pointed out during the debates, Romney did not really act like a Republican—one can read into that however they wish. Romney certainly did not open the flood gates of Republican influence in the Massachusetts, the gates were opened by the Tea Party.
Where the Tea Party originally began is up for debate; however they stole the limelight with their Taxed Enough Already protest in the Boston Harbor. Since that peaceful protest the message of the Tea Party has evolved and spread throughout the Republican Party and worked its influence into every corner of the GOP.
The real shock was when Republican Scott Brown won a special election and become the first Republican Senator to represent the state of Massachusetts since 1972. Democrats were stunned, not only had a Republican been elected to the US Senate, but that Republican was occupying Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. Additionally Scott Brown was not well know, a political outsider, and an admitted Tea Party Candidate.
With the election of Republican Massachusetts State Representative Orrall, the Republican party’s numbers grow in the 160-member House to 33, building upon gains made by the party in last year’s House elections. It also continues a reddening of Bristol County, which is now represented by eight Democrats and six Republicans, four of whom, counting Orrall, are freshmen.
The key here is that many of the Republicans are freshman, recently elected officials. This shows a fracture in liberal Massachusetts, people are fed up with the behavior of the Democrats not only nationally but in the state as well. The message is clear, the Democrats need to listen to the needs of the people and act on them or else their onetime supporters will send a message and that message is electing a member of the GOP.
This is not just isolated to Massachusetts. In New York during a special election (see a trend yet) to replace disgraced US Representative Democrat Anthony Weiner, the Republican candidate won the election. That New York district had not sent a Republican to Washington since the 1920s.
The big question is: what is going on, why are the Democratic areas voting for Republican candidates? People are angry, scared, and perhaps more importantly voters are disappointed. Nationally the Democrats came into power controlling The House, Senate, and the Presidency. The past Republican lead administration left the nation with high debt, no jobs, involvement in two wars, and a financial recession. Fast forward three years after the Demarcates take over and the nation has high debt, no jobs, involvement in two wars and a conflict in Libya, and a financial recession.
Sure, national healthcare is in the works, but many supporters of the program do feel that the program goes far enough. Sure, gay rights have made tremendous positive strides and nearly countless environmental issues that had been ripped apart by the Bush administration have been repaired. These are all great, however if your pay check has not increased to cover the dramatic rise in the cost of living, or you do not have a job, or you are under employed, or your house is being foreclosed on—these issues do not matter to you right now.
For many Democratic voters the focus has been lost, the elected Democrats in charge have lost sight of the ball and what issues are important to their supporters. In response Democratic voters are voting for the other team and the Republicans are playing off of the Democratic weaknesses by running on issues that people are attracted to—jobs.
It is questionable if the Republicans will actually bring jobs. What is not questionable, however, is that there tend to be two kinds of voters, reactionary voters and non reactionary voters. Reactionary voters often vote based on emotion, such as anger, disappointment, and fear. This style of voting results in the current party in charge losing control making more a drastic and chaotic change in the political landscape. Non reactionary voters vote based on political ideology and a candidate’s stance on an issue that the voter cares about. This type of voting results in new candidates replacing old candidates, or the continuation of a candidate whose political opinions work with the voter. This makes for a more gradual and less chaotic change.
We live in a reactionary time; just take a look at the stock market. The political shift taking place in the lead up to the major election in 2012 has been fascinating. The Democrats still have time to pull themselves up and show their supporters that the party has not left them and has the ability and backbone to do what they were elected to do—but it is going be an uphill battle.
Comments