washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

Massachusetts Special Election: What Does It Mean?
Just minutes after Democrat Niki Tsongas beat Republican Jim Ogonowski and claimed victory in the Massachusetts' 5th district special election, the spin wars began.

The National Republican Congressional Committee sent out a memo entitled "The Democratic Wave Breaks" that argued that he MA-05 special election "provides important insights into the 2008 congressional elections."

What are those insights?

First, that with Democrats now in control of a decidedly unpopular Congress, they will be held to account by voters. The party is "no longer seen as the solution to the problem in Washington -- Democrats have become part of the problem in Washington," according to the NRCC memo.

Second, that the 2006 election was a rejection of a wayward Republican party, not an acceptance of the Democratic agenda. "No longer perceived as agents of change, Democrats are left without policy positions voters embrace," read the memo.

The memo also rolled out a number of facts and figures that make the case for why Tsongas, the wife of late Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas (D), should have won by a far wider margin.

Democratic luminaries like former President Bill Clinton, Massachusetts Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) campaigned for Tsongas; both Kerry and former Vice President Al Gore carried the district with 57 percent during their respective presidential runs in 2004 and 2000; no Republican has held the seat since the early 1970s.

Of course, Democrats had their own set of statistics to argue why the closeness of the contest was expected and therefore meaningless to the larger national electoral picture.

Gov. Deval Patrick was the first Democrat to carry the 5th district since 1994, and he only won it with 50.5 percent -- well below the 55 percent he received statewide last November; then Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis lost this district to President George H.W. Bush in the 1988 presidential race; and Republicans controlled the Congressional seat for 50 years until Paul Tsongas won it in 1974.

So, which side is right?

They both are -- sort of.

Ogonowski did gain real traction by casting Tsongas as the de facto incumbent and running as an outsider to the political process. He also found fertile ground by calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration and decrying Tsongas' support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants as amnesty.

With that campaign strategy, Ogonowski may have provided Republicans a blueprint to follow in contested races next year. Congressional approval numbers are mired in the mid 20s while disapproval crests 60 percent in most recent national surveys. And, immigration is an issue that seems to cut across party lines with a call for the law to be enforced a potent political position.

Republicans shouldn't get carried away, however, when analyzing the importance of Ogonowski's near-miss. A loss -- whether by five points or 50 points -- is still a loss.

Remember back to June 2006 when the resignation of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) forced a special election in his San Diego area 50th district. Former Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) defeated Francine Busby (D) 50 percent to 45 percent in the race, a result that Democrats cast as a moral victory due to the closeness of the result in a district that clearly favored Republicans.

At the time, we wrote:

"The thought that coming close is almost as good as winning for Democrats is simply not plausible. In order to retake the House, Democrats will need to win in seats that tilt toward Republicans -- maybe not as strongly as California's 50th but close in many cases. 'Close' simply does not count in politics."

The same holds for this race. Had Ogonowski find a way to win, Republicans would rightly crow that all of the doomsday talk about their chances in 2008 was misguided. But, he didn't.

That doesn't mean, however, that Democrats should ignore the result. Now that their party controls the House and the Senate, they must prepare to defend what Congress has (or hasn't done) in next November's elections. It's the burden of the majority.

By Chris Cillizza | October 17, 2007; 11:10 AM ET

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2 ... ction.html