Both Democrats and Republicans are looking at tonight's electoral result as a potential indicator of party success. Individuals on both sides of the political aisle are attaching significant capital to the race that will inevitably find a replacement for Kristen E. Gillibrand, the Representative who recently filled former Sen. Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.
According to last week's numbers, Democratic candidate, Scott Murphy, is leading Republican candidate, James N. Tedisco. But, as Americans have learned, early polling isn't always indicative of what will truly happen once the ballots are tallied (remember the media's coverage 2004 election?).
This election does, indeed, hold great consequence for both parties. For the Democrats, a win signifies yet another vote – and, most importantly, a further deterioration of what little system of “checks and balances” is left within the federal government (Democratic rule is running amok, in case you haven't noticed). For the GOP, a win might inspire the confidence needed to rebound and the inspiration to win back more seats in 2010.
Listening to liberal pundits talk about a potential Murphy win practically inundates audiences with a level of irony unseen since Biden's latest gaffe (luckily for America, Biden is so inflicted with gaffisism that one rarely has to wait between flaps).
As liberal commentators chalk up a hypothetical Murphy win to Obama's “superb” leadership (as though a Democrat replacing a Democrat would constitute a historic victory), one cannot help but chuckle. After all, conservatives have been bellowing (considering the far-left policies America has been inflicted with, not loudly enough) in response to Obama's inexperienced meanderings. The liberal response? “Obama hasn't been in office long enough to judge him! Bush left him with a horrible situation!”
So let's translate: Liberals believe that a Tedisco loss is predicated upon Obama's idyllic leadership, but they do not believe that Obama has been in office long enough to rightfully criticize. Something doesn't add up here, hence the irony ensues.
The New York Times sums the hype up, appropriately (irony, yet again) as follows:
“Even before a vote was cast, the contest was freighted with all kinds of political significance — an early test of President Obama's political strength, a verdict on the stimulus package, a do-or-die moment for a new Republican national chairman, an early sign of how the 2010 midterm elections are going to go (never mind that they are 20 months way).”
But, let's be real. New York is only one state (and let's remember, this is only one district) and viewpoints and perspectives held within district boundaries will, in no way, capture the sociopolitical landscape that is sure to evolve over the next two years. As reported by the Times, former Virginia congressman, Tom David, says it best:
“The first thing you can count on is this thing is going to be way overspun. I don’t think it portends a thing for the midterms. But it emboldens whoever wins.”
While Obama and RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, have thrown their names and campaigning power behind the candidates, at the end of the day it is New Yorkers who will most directly benefit or see deficits in the quality of their lives as a result of the election. Let's hope Tedisco pulls it off. After all, New York state needs all the red blood she can get.