So, the Republicans won the House of Representatives, as expected. That's no great surprise; and while their new margin seems considerable, it is, in fact, not dissimilar to those of nearly every president's party that has lost seats during the midterms, including President Bill Clinton's. But actually, that's not the big story the day after America's midterm elections of 2010. In fact, there are two big losers: Senate Republicans and the Super PACs that failed to catapult them to victory.
First, Senate Republicans. Let's recall that just two days ago, Democrats were said to be in the "fight of their lives" to retain the Senate. Suddenly, last night, Republicans were backpeddling furiously to depict a race that was never really in play. As a seemingly bewildered Alex Castellanos, leading Republican strategist, asked CNN viewers at around midnight:
"Why aren't Republicans doing a little bit better in Senate races than in the House races? We can still win Pennsylvania and Illinois, but Colorado, California don't look so good. And I think it's the weakness in the Republican party we're seeing tonight."
He was right. Last night, the Republican Senate non-meltdown started in West Virginia, the first race Republicans were boasting as a "done deal" for their candidate. They had certainly spent enough: the shady Super PACs, the American Action Network and Karl Rove's Americans Crossroads spent a combined $1.3m trying to defeat Governor Manchin, to no avail.
And so it went, in state after state throughout the night. Yes, they won some Senate seats – in Pennsylvania and Illinois. But the flagship races – those that the GOP had targeted as highest priorities – were held firmly by Democrats.
The best example? Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada – whose predicted defeat was supposed to be the flagship of the Republican sweep. As Manu Raju, political reporter for Politico told me: "The National Republican senatorial committee has all along made Nevada a top target this election." It was so important, they poured $5.2m into their unsuccessful attempt to defeat Reid – including $3.6m from Karl Rove's American Crossroads. All to lose the seat with the Tea Party-backed candidate Sharron Angle by a whopping 5%.
In California, the NRSC spent more in that state than in any other race: $8m in supporting Carly Fiorina's effort to unseat Senator Barbara Boxer – far more than the committee spent in any other race in the country. The result? A 9% loss.
"This is the perfect case illustrating that dirty money doesn't always talk," Eric Schultz, director of communications for the National Democratic senatorial committee told me last night. "Republican shadow groups spent $5.8m in their unsuccessful attempt to defeat Senator Boxer – including $1m from Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, and $3.9m from the US Chamber of Commerce. They threw good money after bad."
This says nothing of the apparent Republican shoe-ins in the states of Washington and Colorado. Here, strongly predicted victories turned in to super-tight races, as yet undecided as the Republican base apparently failed to deliver the massive support to their candidates that had been foretold.
And so to the Tea Party, some of whose candidates won, many of whose candidates lost. It's the worst of both worlds for Republicans. One the one hand, the Tea Party most likely cost the Republicans the Senate. Extreme Tea Partiers like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware all but handed their elections to their Democratic opponents. Had reasonable Republicans run in those states, it might have turned out very differently and the Senate might have flipped to the Republicans – that was the conclusion being circulated in Republican circles last night.
As one senior Republican strategist, who asked to remain anonymous, put it to me last night: "We got royally screwed by the Tea Partiers in these states – without them, we might have had a better shot at the Senate." Chief suspect in this screwup: Sarah Palin, who made, at best, questionable endorsements both in primaries (Christine O'Donnell in Delaware) and in the general election (Joe Miller in Alaska).
So, while the Tea Party may be credited for generally increasing energy and turnout for Republicans, it's clearly time for recriminations in the Republican party about their ultimate effect. Already, last night, Republican party leaders were bracing themselves for an internal battle – not just over Tea Party- precipitated losses, but more importantly, over the implications of Tea Party wins. As the candidates made their speeches, it became quite clear that the Tea Party movement's ultra-partisan approach was going to stand in stark contrast to the conciliatory note being struck by both John Boehner, the new House majority leader, and the White House.
It's the start of an important and likely contentious debate. Not just between Republicans and Democrats who seek to find common ground (or more likely political advantage), but rather between moderate Republicans willing to compromise and Tea Party supporters determined to continue to be "the party of no". The latters' stance does not seem to accord with the instruction that seems to have been delivered by American voters: "Work together, or else!"
One thing is clear: this isn't a sweeping mandate for Republicans. At best, it's a second chance after their 2008 rout. Unless they can reconcile the strident voices of their Tea Party movement candidates with listening to the strong message from Americans for conciliation, it's a second chance they're going to blow.
