opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Mark Shields
Mark Shields
6 Feb 2016
Cracking the Code of Campaign-Speak

"Do you ever get the feeling," asked humorist Robert Orben, "that the only reason we have elections is to … Read More.

30 Jan 2016
Is There Only One True Progressive?

Mark Shields is off this week. The following is a column by Joe Conason. In our polarized politics, the … Read More.

23 Jan 2016
The Man Who Drowned Democracy With 'Sewer Money'

Mark Shields is off this week. The following is a column by Joe Conason. This week marked the anniversary of … Read More.

Special Elections Can Really Be Special


Special elections are politically freaky. They are hostage to the whim of unpredictable voter turnout on some random date. At least, that's how some quivering Democrats, still reeling from the jolt of Republican Scott Brown's smashing victory in the special Massachusetts Senate election, are consoling themselves. Not to be mean, but let's look at the history books.

On the night of Nov. 5, 1991, Democrat Harris Wofford, after trailing former Pennsylvania governor and U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh by 40 percent in the polls, won the special election to replace Republican Sen. John Heinz, who had died in a plane crash.

To a cheering crowd of supporters, Wofford explained what his campaign victory meant: "Let the word go forth form this place on the Delaware to our nation's capital on the banks of the Potomac: 'We want national health insurance.'"

During his 1991 effort, Wofford had formulated the winning argument, "If criminals have the right to a lawyer, I think working Americans should have the right to a doctor."

The Wofford campaign, led by James Carville and Paul Begala (who would go from there to central roles in Bill Clinton's winning presidential campaign) put health care squarely on the national agenda. In fact, in Clinton's Little Rock, Ark., headquarters, Carville — to remind campaign workers what the campaign was entirely about — had a sign that read: "Change vs. More of the Same," "The Economy, Stupid" and "Don't Forget Healthcare."

Campaign themes do often become presidential initiatives, as health care reform did in Clinton's first White House term. The failure of the new Democratic administration to even get a floor vote on the president's health care plan in either the House or Senate, both controlled by his own party, contributed to the Democrats' losing their House majority in 1994. Special elections often do have enormous consequences.

Nineteen years later, Scott Brown's special election Senate victory in Massachusetts could be the bookend to Harris Wofford's 1991 Pennsylvania upset win.

Where Pennsylvania voters then pushed the issue and idea of health care to national attention, Massachusetts voters now may well have sunk the first national health care reform plan ever to pass both houses of Congress.

It is both silly and unrealistic to propose, as some health care supporters have, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ask her House colleagues to pass the Senate bill. For House Democrats, to vote for the Senate bill with its widely publicized special deals, including the Louisiana Purchase to secure the vote of Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu and the Nebraska Auction to win the backing of Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, would be political suicide.

Republican managers are already salivating over the prospects of running a campaign against any House Democrat who voted to ratify and justify those rightly criticized Senate deals — so politically objectionable that Nelson publicly asked that Nebraska's special treatment be dropped from the legislation.

Massachusetts was a major, important victory for Republicans and a major, important defeat for Democrats. Unwilling to face that reality, some White House types argue that "local issues" were decisive in Massachusetts. Sorry, but the president's personal campaigning and the millions spent by the national party committees and affiliated groups effectively nationalized the Massachusetts race.

The easy and wrong way out for losing Democrats is to blame the candidate, the failed nominee Martha Coakley. Blaming the losing candidate can sometimes shift blame. But it also ignores the distinct likelihood that voters may instead have found Our Party's record, ideas or values irrelevant, clueless or objectionable. Coakley will not be on the ballot next fall in Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, California or Delaware. But the Democratic candidates who will be are a lot more nervous today, after Scott Browns' upset win, than they were before Jan. 19.

To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at




0 Comments | Post Comment
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Mark Shields
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Jim Hightower
Jim HightowerUpdated 10 Feb 2016
Roger Simon
Roger SimonUpdated 9 Feb 2016
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 9 Feb 2016

30 Aug 2012 A Different Kind of VP Candidate

6 Feb 2016 Cracking the Code of Campaign-Speak

12 Oct 2012 Discovering Columbus 2012