Elections come and go. Some leave a scant trace; others a distinct and lasting mark. That historical judgment will be passed in years to come, but let’s take a look inside the numbers and the hype.
This wave cleared the beach. Early Tuesday evening, the neck-and-neck Virginia Senate race served as the canary in the coal mine. If this seemingly safe seat was in play, then the tide was going to be high and wide with plenty of Democrats washed out to sea. Further, unlike the Gingrich revolution of 1994, this one would hit Colorado with significant force.
The color purple. At stake on Tuesday was nothing less than the viability of the Republican Party in Colorado. Had Republicans not seized victory with the best player on their bench (Cory Gardner) in the most favorable climate imaginable, then Colorado would have been rightly regarded as a reliably blue state. OK, perhaps not navy blue, but a soft periwinkle.
Though Democrats are licking their wounds, let me suggest that purple is a preferable political hue to blue (or red). Competition is good and states with two viable parties tend to enjoy better governance than those of one-party domination. (See California. Or Kansas.)
The era of ticket-splitting is on life support. In a previous era, Democrat Dick Lamm and Republican Bill Armstrong could simultaneously be elected by 60-40 margins. Ditto for Democrat Roy Romer and Republican Hank Brown. Regrettably, those days are long gone, as Coloradans (and the rest of the country) have sorted themselves decidedly into polarized camps. Barely over 5 percent of Colorado voters split their ticket this year — the gap between Gardner’s victory and Bob Beauprez’s more narrow loss.
Who buys a one-legged stool? Memo to Democratic consultants: The “war on women” narrative has grown stale. Its sell-by date has expired. Even in past years, it was but one part of a messaging triad. For inexplicable reasons, Mark Udall, with a compelling personal story and a long political tenure, chose to go all-in on this single issue. For many voters, the response was, “What else ya got?”
Keep in mind that the gender gap cuts both ways. When Democrats perform well, they run up the score among women while minimizing their losses among men. Per a late poll, Udall was doing the opposite, winning female voters by roughly 9 percent but losing males by double that.
A battle of unforced errors. While Tuesday was a big night for Colorado Republicans — a survival story, if you will — it could have been even more. With the GOP capturing the governor’s chairs in far deeper blue states (Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois; though only the latter involved the ouster of an incumbent), they could not close the deal here.
John Hickenlooper’s self-inflicted wounds gave life to Republican chances. But Beauprez’s own fumbles allowed Hick to escape the hook and overcome the wave. The governor’s vulnerability was always around his leadership style, yet, inexplicably, Beauprez chose to close with some weird, non-credible, fear-based message of crime and mayhem rampant in the streets. Hashtag missed opportunity.
Gardner’s words; Hick’s challenge. Gardner’s oft-repeated lines of “a new kind of Republican” and “when my party is wrong, I’ll say so” were pitch-perfect. But a campaign refrain is just that. Follow-through is a different matter. We’re waiting and watching to see if this is more than rhetoric, senator-elect. For our re-elected governor, it is a chance to reboot. The changed dynamics of legislative control (still not certain as of this writing) should make his political lot easier. To offer one bit of unsolicited advice, he (and the state) would be well served with more leading and less pleasing. Quit worrying so much about being liked by everyone everyday.
The GOP should put away the confetti. Winning sure beats losing. But it does not magically fix fundamental challenges. When Republicans wake from their happy hangover, they will discover that their brand is still troubled; their internal fissures remain; and many demographic trends are not on their side. We now have two distinct electorates: one that favors Democrats in presidential years and another that advantages Republicans in the off-cycle. Keep in mind that the next two Colorado Senate races will be in a presidential context: Michael Bennet in 2016 and Gardner in 2020.
Hillary vs. history. In this distressingly non-stop campaign environment, the 2016 presidential contest is already well underway. Dispirited Democrats, wanting to move past the Obama era, will put even more pressure on Hillary Clinton to declare her intentions soon and come be their savior. There will be ample time for more than ample words on this race.
But let me simply note the underlying dichotomy. On one hand, Hillary (now culturally mononymous), with the gender card firmly in hand and now benefitted by a Republican Congress, seems an unstoppable force. (Though the same was said eight years ago.) On the other, with only the exception of Bush 41, the history of the past century is that the White House shifts to the other party after a two-term presidency. Something is about to give.
Worrisome signs of a broken system. Compared with much of the world, our two-party construct has proven remarkably stable and resilient. Yet that system seems stressed and dysfunctional as seldom before. While I know of no way around the First Amendment (nor am I looking for such a path), the takeover of both parties by huge money is cancerous. Where such wave elections used to occur once a generation, we now go through one after another as a perpetually (and rightly) dissatisfied public throws out one set of bums in favor of trying something else. All the while, our two parties drift further toward their base elements, adding more venomous polarization to a dangerous spiral.
Eric Sondermann is a Denver-based, independent political analyst and commentator. EWS@EricSondermann.com; @ericsondermann on Twitter.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
