Election 2010

Watching the national election results roll in on Tuesday night, two things became apparent to me.

1) Republican and Tea Party gains in this election are a result of voter frustration with national politicians, not frustration with Democrats in particular.  Republicans are correct that voters indicated a desire for change in Washington DC, but are misguided in claiming that voters think the Republican party, as a group, is the right choice.  Americans voted against Democrats, not for Republicans.  Tea Party victories are evidence of this.

2) If the Republicans want to regain control of the executive and legislative branches in 2012, perhaps their best strategy is to just use delay tactics for two years and let 2012 hinge on economic developments- in short, to do nothing.  Results of the 2012 elections will depend heavily on what happens to America's economic situation over the next two years.  If the economy recovers, Republicans can point to their election in 2010 as the catalyst for this improvement, even if they didn't successfully pass any significant legislation.  If the economy does not recover, Republicans can blame it on Democratic policies established in Obama's first two years.  Either way, the Republican party would look good compared to Democrats in 2012.

Combining these two ideas, the real winners of the 2010 election are the Tea Party candidates.  They were elected due to voter frustration with the current set of available politicians.  I expect those politicians will continue to spend their time placing party priorities above public good and above their own principles.  This should be particularly easy with the House and Senate controlled by different parties.  If the elected Tea Party members and potential future candidates continue to vocally place principle above party, and refuse to align with Republicans in some areas, voters will notice, and we'll see the Tea Party representation grow going forward.