Let me lightly revise and expand my post from just before the NJ and VA gubernatorial elections in 2009.
Be prepared. You will see the pundits hold forth on what the Massachusetts special election “means” for the Republicans, the Democrats, Obama, Curt Schilling, and Lord knows what else.
The correct answer will be: I don’t know. This election could turn on national politics. It could turn on local factors and issues. It could turn on both, although we won’t know how important each was. Who wins can’t tell us why they won. And there won’t be an exit poll, which would give us only the most tentative interpretation anyway.
This is why I’ve struggled to write something lucid about this campaign. Yes, there’s been a striking trend in Brown’s favor. But we have no conclusive evidence as to what is driving this trend, just as we will not have any evidence about why he or Coakley won. My rank speculation is no better than anyone else’s.
The problem with speculating about the meaning of elections is that such speculation often devolves into a discussion of “optics,” “narrative” and other woolly terms. But the “narrative” only exists when commentators construct it. It’s not some independent entity that is magically affected by election outcomes. To talk about how the MA election affects some “narrative” is like saying, “The MA election affects how I am talking about the effect of the MA election.” Nor is it clear if changes in narrative have tangible consequences for things that actually matter — like presidential approval, upcoming elections, etc.
There is only one truly significant potential consequence of the MA race, and that’s what having 59 as opposed to 60 Senators will do to the prospects for certain pieces of legislation, notably health care reform.