Informed Speculation

The entire world understands what this election meant, it seems, except hard-left ‘progressive’ bloggers who are desperately trying to stay relevant. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York certainly seems to understand what brought his side to victory on Tuesday:

Mr. Schumer is no wide-eyed neophyte, and understands this election was mostly about his opponents. “I’d say 75% of this election was about the people’s opinion of the president and 25% was about what Democrats would do.” Candid political math.

So how did they win? “The No. 1 reason was people wanted a change, and President Bush did not want to even suggest change. The second is that we recruited really good candidates who fit their states. . . . And the third thing was that we were able to raise enough money that we could play offense and defense.” Mr. Schumer admits that part of their win was a large dollop of planning, and a sprinkling of good luck. In 2004, Democrats lost five red states after their incumbents retired, creating open seats that were easy Republican pickings. This time, he and Minority Leader Harry Reid went to all their red-state incumbents and convinced them to stay. As for the luck, many of the White House’s favored challengers in these states didn’t run or emerge victorious in primaries. As a result, states that should have been difficult for Democrats, weren’t: “By the end of the election, you didn’t even hear about the Nebraska race, the North Dakota race, or the Florida race, because that [strategy] worked.”

As for competitive races, Mr. Schumer returns to recruitment and what he claims is a new belief among Democrats in creating a bigger tent. “The classic example is Pennsylvania. I thought Santorum was the most vulnerable of all the incumbent Republicans because he was out of touch with Pennsylvania. And I called Gov. [Ed] Rendell and I said, ‘Who is the best candidate?’ . . . And he said, ‘Only one person can beat [Santorum] but (a) he doesn’t want to run and (b) you wouldn’t want him to run if he did.’ Well, I said, ‘If he’s the only one who can beat him, why wouldn’t I want him to run?’ And he said, ‘Because he’s pro-life.’ ” Mr. Schumer pauses here, to make sure the next part is clear. “I said, ‘Governor, the days are over when a Democrat has to check 28 boxes before they get our support.’ So we actively recruited him, and once he entered the race, he was never behind.” The New Yorker, here, looks pleased as punch.

As he should be, since recruitment of similar moderate candidates was what ultimately won Democrats control. In Montana, Democratic Senate candidate (and farmer) Jon Tester ran on gun rights and tax cuts. In Virginia, Senate candidate Jim Webb was a pro-military former Reagan Navy secretary. Tennessee’s Harold Ford (though he lost) was highly competitive in a red state because of his conservative stance on partial-birth abortion and gay marriage. The House is a similar picture, where most of the two dozen or so Democratic winners campaigned on somewhat conservative social and fiscal issues. The great unknown is how these more moderate Democrats will fit into the majority. Will they exert a moderating influence on legislative priorities and subpoena inclinations, or be sidelined by the old liberal bulls–some of whom have been waiting a long time to be back in charge?

That’s it in a nutshell…which side prevails? Which Charles, Rangel or Schumer? Absent some huge, seismic 9/11-type event, the answer will probably determine the longevity of the Democratic reign…