On whirlwind night, Republicans blitz to better night than imagined

Republicans were expected to retake the Senate on Election Night. But not so emphatically. Now, they look likely to nearly sweep the tossup Senate races and win some surprising governor's races.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus arrives for a news conference at RNC headquarters on Capitol Hill in Washington Tuesday. Needless to say, he's pleased.
Cheryl Senter/AP
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) of New Hampshire hugs a volunteer as she heads in to vote at the Town Hall in Madbury, N.H., Tuesday. Major media outlets have called the race for Senator Shaheen.
Gerry Broome/AP
Stickers await voters after they cast their votes on Election Day at Glenwood Center in Greensboro, N.C., Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2014.

[Updated at 2:55 a.m. EST] For a sign of how good the night was for Republicans, look no further than Virginia. Sure, in the end, Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Warner seemed likely to eke out a victory, but he was barely hanging on in a race that wasn’t even considered to be in play by most pundits.

Before Election Day, Democrats had been insisting that polls were unfairly tilting Republican, and that a strong ground game would give them unexpected victories.

But in the end, Republicans in almost every key race have actually done better than polls predicted.

Republicans regained control of the US Senate, emphatically. By midnight, Republicans had already been projected to win seven states back from Democrats: Arkansas, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, Iowa, North Carolina, and Colorado. Alaska, which won’t be called until Wednesday morning at the earliest, also seems a likely pickup for Republicans on a night where they’ve performed so well everywhere else. Louisiana is headed to a runoff on Dec. 6, giving Republicans a chance to pick up another seat. And in Kansas, where Independent Greg Orman at one point was favored to win, Sen. Pat Roberts (R) hung on to his seat.

That raises the possibility of Republicans winning nine of the 10 tossup races. That would give Republicans 54 seats in the next Senate.

Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s victory in New Hampshire was the lone bright spot for Democrats, and even there, the victory was much narrower than expected.

“This is the best night the Republican establishment has had in a long time,” says Jack Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. And unlike in 2010, he notes, many of the victors were more traditional Republican, not tea party candidates. “This is the triumph of your grandfather’s Republican Party.”

Key governor races, which many pundits had been predicting would be better for Democrats, were also going to Republicans, in some cases shockingly. In a major win for the GOP, Republican Rick Scott beat Democrat Charlie Crist in Florida. And Republicans won fairly easily in what had been expected to be close races in Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, Kansas, and Georgia. Moreover, Republicans picked up governor's mansions in deep blue states like Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts, while Colorado remained too close to call.

But it was the decisive victory in the Senate that headlined the night.

“Republicans are likely to control the Senate by a considerable margin,” says Professor Pitney. “The conventional wisdom was that Republicans might pick up the Senate in 2014, but may lose it again in 2016 when they’re more heavily exposed. But if they build up a nice cushion in 2014, then they could hold on, the way Democrats held on in 2012…. It’s fair to say the opposition to President Obama has grown more formidable.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to On whirlwind night, Republicans blitz to better night than imagined
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today