opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Mark Shields
Mark Shields
29 Aug 2015
Pat Moynihan Explains the 2016 Republican Race

Daniel Patrick Moynihan — four-term U.S. senator from New York, ambassador and White House adviser &#… Read More.

15 Aug 2015
Why Bernie Sanders' Big Crowds Count

When Democratic presidential candidates have campaigned in Los Angeles, it has usually been around a private … Read More.

8 Aug 2015
Missing Richard Nixon

John P. Sears, before he was manager of Ronald Reagan's 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns, had spent the … 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
Aug. `15
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 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
30 31 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
Jamie Stiehm
Jamie StiehmUpdated 4 Sep 2015
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 4 Sep 2015
Jill Lawrence
Jill LawrenceUpdated 3 Sep 2015

15 Nov 2008 Choices Have Consequences -- Unless You're Joe Lieberman

10 Dec 2011 Endorsements Matter on Checks, Not for President

14 Nov 2009 Don't Underestimate This Speaker