Journalists are always hungry for some politics. And you could see the saliva practically dripping off the page this morning in stories about the first congressional election of 2006 – to fill the seat of disgraced and imprisoned Rep. Randy Cunningham of San Diego.
In the great Busby-Bilbray death match (that’s Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby) Bilbray won 49 percent of the vote to Busby’s 45, keeping the heavily Republican district in GOP hands.
The great political story building steam is, of course, whether Democrats can capture a majority in the House or the Senate this fall. And journalists covered the California race with their cutlery out, chopping and masticating their way through the results in search of a tea leaf for the November elections.
But any longer look at the election would immediately makes it clear to us (as we effortlessly switch metaphors) that this particular district, and this particular race, makes a poor canary to place in the national coalmine.
For one thing, the district has always been a GOP stronghold, with 44 percent of voters registered Republican to 29 percent Democrat. Bush won there in 2004 with 55 percent of the vote. Then, of course, there is the massive effort in money and manpower put forward by the Republican party to ensure that that it didn’t lose the seat — $5 million and a small army of volunteers, not to mention recorded phone calls from George, Laura, and Dick.
On top of this, Bilbray took a very hard line in the immigration debate in the border district, advocating that the U.S.-Mexico fence be built as soon as possible.
All these extenuating circumstances make this atypical of the kind of races Republicans are worried about and Democrats are hopeful for. Even Republican analysts know that the Republican National Committee can’t afford to spend this type of money on every congressional race, and that the circumstances in each district won’t be so promising — or, as Rahm Emanuel put it, “Not every district is going to be on the border of Mexico.”
Still, none of this stopped reporters from seeing the race as a bellwether for November. Just look at the headlines. The New York Times called its piece, “Narrow Victory by GOP Signals Fall Problems,” while the Washington Post went with, “Victory in California Calms GOP” for its analysis. To be fair, both articles contained bits of nuance. But for the most part, the reporters were helpless to stop themselves from billing Busby-Bilbray as a litmus test. This is how the Post led: “A special election for a House district in California left Republicans with control of the seat, while offering scant evidence of the highly energized Democratic electorate that analysts say would be needed to dislodge the GOP from power on Capitol Hill in November.” (Italics ours.) Maybe we’re missing something, but couldn’t this have more to do with the fact that there isn’t much of a Democratic electorate in this district? The Post goes on to state that, “For Democrats, it highlighted how difficult it could be to translate generally favorable national trends into tangible victories on the ground.” Again, ignoring all the particularities of the district and the race.
Thankfully, the Los Angeles Times managed to hit just the right, measured tone in its analysis, headlined, “And Now for the GOP’s Real Test.” Getting right to the point, the Times notes that the race “shed little light on what seems the key question in November’s election: Can Republicans keep their House majority by also holding on to enough seats in districts more evenly balanced between the two parties? Most analysts cautioned against reading too much into a race that amounted to Republicans holding serve by retaining control of a district that has voted reliably Republican.”
We know. Journalists love a contest, and we’re all very excited to see what happens in November. But let’s not strain our eyes trying to see trends and portents that just aren’t there.
Gal Beckerman is a former staff writer at CJR and a writer and editor for the New York Times Book Review.