The Difference Between the Kennedy and Murtha Seats – A Warning for Republicans

Just four months apart, there were very different results in the special elections for the “Kennedy Seat” and the “Murtha Seat.” Each race was to replace a long-standing Democrat icon. Each race held out high hopes for Republicans in an anti-incumbent environment. Yet the results were not the same. While no two races are exactly alike, the different results, in similar races, provides an important warning for Republicans.

The Similarities. The race to replace Kennedy and Murtha included many similarities. There is no question that there is an anti-Washington and therefore an anti-incumbent wave crossing America. High unemployment and even higher deficits, combined with a sense that government is no longer by the people is worrying many an incumbent. The manner in which Health Care was passed and the very nature of that government take-over continue to weigh on the minds of voters.

An incredible 56% of voters, on the day of the Murtha replacement election, still want the health care bill repealed. No greater examples of the intensity of the anti-Washington fervor can be found in the fall of Senator Bennett in Utah (a long time conservative) and in the fall of Charlie Crist (backed by the Republican establishment).

Beyond that, the Kennedy/Murtha races did not feature huge personalities stepping up to take the seats. Instead, more local/regional candidates ran. Despite those similarities, however, there was a different outcome. The Republicans picked up the Kennedy seat – despite longer registration odds – and lost the Murtha seat. The reasons why are telling.

Reason #1. The Health Care rage has cooled. Despite the high number of people that want the health care bill repealed, the anti-health care bill factor was much greater in the Kennedy replacement race than in the Murtha race. Recall that the Kennedy race occurred during the health care debate. How the candidates would vote on the bill was a very important issue. By contrast, the Murtha replacement race occurred months later when that very hot button issue was not the monolithic focus of the nation.

Reason #2. The Kennedy Seat was a national election/The Murtha seat was not. Scott Brown’s election to the Kennedy seat was made possible because it was a nationalized election. He received help from around the country and the election was seen as a referendum on health care and Obama’s policies. By contrast, the Murtha seat was won by Democrats on a day when there were bigger races around the country. As a result, there simply was not the same national focus, or Republican resources deployed, as there was to the Kennedy seat.

The Warning for Republicans. Without a doubt, Scott Brown benefitted enormously from the anti-Washington/anti-health care wave. He did so and won in perhaps the most Democrat seat in America. But that election was the only show in town during a unique national focus on health care. That dynamic cannot be duplicated this Fall. The simple truth is that there will be thousands of races this Fall and resources will be stretched thin instead of on one race.

Even so, in order to win the 50, or 60 or 70 House seats that can be won, Republicans simply must nationalize the election by presenting a strong narrative this Fall. Today, 2/3rds of those turning towards Republicans say they are doing so mostly out of disappointment with Democrats, not because they are identifying with for Republicans. In order to change that around, and convince voters to vote for Republicans not just against Democrats, all Congressional Republican candidates simply must provide a convincing platform as to how and why they will reign in government. They must tell the Country where they are going if they want Americans to follow. 1994 proved it can be done. It is not a question of a way, it is a question of will.