The 2009 elections offered up mixed results for progressives.

While some would claim otherwise, the 2009 elections were hardly a landslide for either party. Both Congressional races were won by Democrats — one in a district that hasn’t elected a Democrat in a lifetime — while both gubernatorial races, in states won last year by Obama, went to Republicans. A rich Democratic incumbent lost a governorship, but a rich independent incumbent right across the river kept the mayoralty of a city more populous than most states. Voters in one state rejected same-sex marriage but reaffirmed their approval of medical marijuana, while those in another seem likely to have approved “marriage-like” unions for same-sex couples, but only barely. And as much as Republicans would like it to be the case, the successful Republicans don’t seem to owe their wins to anti-Obama sentiment; on the other hand, neither did the “Obama factor” help the Democrats he campaigned for in high-profile, high-stakes races, even in the most Democratic part of the country.

But that doesn’t mean there are no greater implications for the races that took place yesterday. There’s something to learn from every election. And wonks like me just love analyzing elections. So let’s take a look at some of this year’s big ones:

Republicans Take Governorships in New Jersey and Virginia

The gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia were undoubtedly the most talked-about races across the nation yesterday. And here, the news for Democrats was terrible: Republicans won both races in states whose governorships had been held by Democrats for eight years, and which President Obama won last year.

Both races had some things in common: lackluster Democratic candidates and Republicans who stayed away from hot-button, culture-war social issues and crafted campaigns carefully designed to win independents. But the two losing Democrats were as different as the two states.

Virginia is a state that would vote solidly Republican were it not for urban and suburban voters in the state’s north, part of the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Essentially, northern Virginia is the northeast, while the rest of the state is the south. Northern Virginians propelled Obama to victory in the state last year, but most couldn’t get enthused about “country lawyer” Creigh Deeds, a conservative Democrat from the ultra-rural west of the state whose down-home style would mostly have appealed to conservative rural voters who would never vote for a Democrat anyway. Meanwhile, Republican Bob McDonnell, who grew up in northern Virginia, campaigned largely on economic issues, casting himself as a moderate and staying away from social issues that would alienate independents. The result: McDonnell won some of the northern Virginian counties that had been the state’s Democratic strongholds in recent years, and came away from the race with a commanding win over Deeds, garnering 58.7% of the vote to Deeds’ 41.3%.

Like McDonnell, New Jersey’s Governor-Elect Chris Christie tried his best not to touch social issues, focusing instead on the economy, taxes and corruption. In liberal, highly urban and suburban New Jersey, strongly articulated conservative stances on issues like abortion and gay rights would have alienated even more voters than in Virginia, at least part of which is still in the conservative south. But his opponent, Governor Jon Corzine, was very different from Creigh Deeds. Despite his origins in small-town Illinois, the one-time Goldman Sachs chairman certainly lacked Deeds’ “country bumpkin” image. Unfortunately, Corzine came off as distant and uninspiring. The terrible state of the economy and New Jersey’s chronic problems of astronomical taxes and rampant corruption combined with Corzine’s lack of personal likability to make him a very easy target for voters’ anger about the terrible state of the state, and his attempts to portray Christie as a dangerous ideologue with close ties to George W. Bush seemed not to stick. (This was a typically dirty New Jersey campaign, with allegations flying that Corzine’s campaign even made fun of the weight of his corpulent opponent.) Even the very public support of President Obama in this reliably Democratic state could not save the incumbent, whose campaign seemed to consist of, “I’m not doing as bad a job as you think — really! And that other guy will be even worse!” It was still a close race, Christie taking 48.8% of the vote to Corzine’s 44.5% and independent Chris Daggett’s 5.8%, but ultimately New Jersey voters decided to axe an incumbent seen by many as disconnected, ineffective and even duplicitous in favor of someone who at least might do better.

Republicans, of course, would like to portray these races as manifestations of a backlash against President Obama, but polls show that voters were largely focused on local issues and that for most President was not a major factor in their decisions. What they do show is that Republicans can still win, at least on a state level, if they stay away from controversial social issues and stick to economics, where their message still resonates with many.

Bloomberg Wins in NYC — Barely

For many (certainly, for me) the surprise of the night was the slimness of the margin by which Mike Bloomberg won his third term as Mayor of New York City. In an election with low turnout, Bloomberg took only 50.6% of the vote to Comptroller Bill Thompson’s 46%.

Given the dynamics of the campaign, Thompson did better than anyone could have reasonably expected. The billionaire Bloomberg had essentially unlimited resources, and did not hesitate to use them, setting spending records. Against the huge financial resources and impressive organization of the Bloomberg campaign, Thompson, an earnest but bland candidate who largely criticized Bloomberg rather than advancing his own agenda, and who seemed to have little coherent vision for how the city should change, should have fared terribly. But no small number of voters were angry with Bloomberg for getting the City Council to overturn term limit laws that the voters themselves had enacted in referenda, and the enormous amounts of his personal wealth left a bitter taste with many as well. According to exit polls, those for whom these two factors had an effect went overwhelmingly for Thompson, perhaps helping to account for his surprisingly good performance. But while a substantial minority did care about these issues, most New Yorkers did not — and those voters by and large went for Bloomberg.

That said, it may perplex many that New York, a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a huge margin, will not have had a Democratic mayor in two decades by the time Bloomberg’s third term expires in 2014. Bloomberg is an independent now, but he ran on the Republican ballot line and was formerly a Republican (and, to be fair, a Democrat before that). But while most voters who considered Bloomberg a Republican voted for Thompson, the largest number of voters considered him an independent, and that group broke overwhelmingly for Bloomberg.

Ultimately, the main reason that Bloomberg won is that most New Yorkers are fairly satisfied with him. An astounding 70% of voters polled said they approved of the job Bloomberg was doing, even though 25% of those voters went for Thompson. Thompson won voters whose biggest issue was housing, but Bloomberg won on the three issues the largest numbers of voters identified as most important to them: the economy, education and crime. The economy in New York, as with most everywhere, is not good (and most voters said so), but it seems voters didn’t blame Bloomberg, and had little confidence that Thompson could do better or even as well. And Bloomberg won big on education and especially crime (though a small majority of parents of public-school students went for Thompson).

But perhaps most importantly of all, those who said they voted in favor of a candidate for mayor mostly voted for Bloomberg. Those who said they voted against the other candidate went overwhelmingly for Thompson. Thompson, perhaps, was unable to win because he didn’t convince New Yorkers why he should be mayor, and while his relatively strong performance indicates that many are not happy with Bloomberg, that discontent simply did not run deep enough for New Yorkers to jump ship en masse to a candidate who did not give them enough reasons to favor him.

NY-23: Conservatives Reach Too Far

Parts of New York’s 23rd Congressional District, in the very rural far north of the state, haven’t elected a Democrat since 1851. (No, that’s not a typo; the district’s largest city, Watertown, hasn’t been represented by a Democrat for 158 years. The Republican Party didn’t even exist in 1851; back then, the Democrats were opposed by the Whigs!) But the Republican nominee for this seat’s special election, Dede Scozzafava, chosen by New York Republicans for her broad appeal, was deemed by many national Republicans to be “too liberal.” Enough national Republicans, lead by Sarah Palin, endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman and attacked Scozzafava that the Republican dropped out of the race, allowing the Democrat, Bill Owens, to win what should have been a very safe Republican seat.

The lesson here is pretty simple: those who demand absolute ideological purity should be prepared to lose often. Imagine if the Republican candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey ran explicitly ideological, hard-right campaigns….

Maine Voters Like Pot Better than Gays; Washington Voters Seem to Have Approved “Marriage-Like” Partnerships

I like Maine. Or at least I used to. It’s got a nice coastline, produces some really nice boats and mail-order clothing, and McDonald’s sells lobster there, which is at least good for a laugh. Unfortunately, 52.8% of Maine’s voters decided their gay and lesbian neighbors just don’t deserve the same rights as everyone else, which is no laughing matter and doesn’t leave me with very warm feelings toward the state. This continues same-sex marriage’s unbroken record of being rejected every time it has come up for a popular referendum — now in 31 states. Worse, this scourge has now entered the northeast, the region hitherto most friendly to same-sex marriage, and for the first time, voters have overturned their elected legislators’ decision to grant equality. (On the other hand, unlike the other 30 referenda, Maine’s didn’t take the form of a constitutional amendment. But that is not much consolation.)

On the other hand, 58.7% of Maine voters did decide to expand the legal usage of medical marijuana. That’s nice; maybe I can get some to make me feel less depressed about the bigotry of the majority of Maine voters and its absurd political system that makes the rights of minorities subject to the whims of the majority.

Meanwhile, voters in the State of Washington appear to have likely approved, by a slim margin, a measure establishing domestic partnerships that would be like marriages, except not. Right now it’s still too close to call, but while I hope the measure does pass, the fact that the voting is so close (currently 51.6% in favor), and that if it does pass, it will still create a “separate and unequal” status for same-sex couples means that still wouldn’t be much of an occasion for celebration.

Long Island: No Real Winners

And at last, we turn to the dull but important business of local Long Island politics. Or this year, maybe not so dull.

Long Island, where high taxes and corruption are chronic problems, looks very similar politically to that other home of NYC’s inner suburbs, New Jersey, but its voters don’t have an entire state government to play with. Instead, similar politics play out on a local level. (New York’s Westchester County, where most of the remaining inner suburbs are located, has similar problems and politics to those of Long Island and New Jersey, and Republicans made big gains there this year.)

Nearly every office in Nassau County was up for election this year, and here voters seemed evenly split on who they want to run the county — or at least those who cared enough to vote, with low turnout signaling a general feeling of apathetic discontent. In spite of, or perhaps because of this low turnout, Election 2009 has turned out to be quite a spectacle in Nassau: more than 24 hours after polls closed, Democratic County Executive Tom Suozzi still doesn’t know whether he’ll keep his job! Right now he appears to have defeated Republican challenger Ed Mangano by an astonishing 237 votes out of more than 245,000, but it could be weeks before a winner is declared. It’s Bush-Gore, Long Island Edition.

It’s not just Suozzi on whom voters were evenly divided; Democratic Comptroller Howard Weitzman lost to Republican challenger George Maragos by 576 votes out of over 230,000 cast. And the County Legislature has been re-taken by Republicans, raising the prospect of governmental gridlock with the Executive and Legislature constantly at odds. Yet District Attorney Kathleen Rice, a Democrat, won by a respectable margin; so did County Clerk Maureen O’Connell, a Republican. Town and city races were mostly won by incumbents of both parties. If anything, Nassau voters don’t seem to care, and those who do are divided astonishingly evenly in what was, when I was growing up there (and my parents before me!), an impenetrable Republican fortress.

Things in Suffolk County were not so edge-of-the-seat exciting. There were no contested county-wide offices; the incumbent District Attorney and Sheriff (Democrats) and Treasurer (a Republican) all ran uncontested. Democrats will keep control of the County Legislature. But town elections show that, like their neighbors in Nassau, Suffolk’s voters are mostly apathetic, and those who aren’t are divided. In the largest town, Brookhaven (home of Stony Brook), Democratic incumbent Mark Lesko, who in March won a special election to replace fellow Democrat and now State Senator Brian Foley, won his first full term as Town Supervisor. But every incumbent on the Town Council will remain, giving Republicans a majority that will continue to encumber Lesko’s ability to carry out his agenda. In other towns the picture is much the same with, as in Nassau County, incumbents largely winning in this low-turnout election, though Democrats picked up the position of Town Supervisor in Southampton, and lost it to Republicans in East Hampton and Riverhead.

So the picture on Long Island is pretty glum: Democrats’ headway in taking over this one-time Republican stronghold seems to have ended in a stalemate with many residents just sitting on the sidelines.

Maybe off-year elections aren’t that boring after all.

Congratulations. The Republicans have finally taken control of the New York State Senate after the evil Democrats’ long tyrannical reign over New York State. The new Republicans promise a bipartisan effort to move forward and eliminate the old corrupt ways of Democrats doing business behind closed doors and keeping certain people out of the process. After a long and terrifying period of the democrats’ old stagnation politics and back-door deals, we are free at last, free at last.

If this doesn’t sound familiar, then you haven’t been living in New York at any point in the last 70 years.Republicans finally get a taste of their own medicine and suddenly they are the party of reform and bipartisanship. I’m not buying it, and neither should any liberal. Democrats gain control for a few months, and immediately the Republicans are up in arms as if they haven’t been playing the same games for decades.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to any Democrat; we are just as much to blame for the coup as they are. What have Democrats really accomplished in their short time? I’ve heard a lot of bickering, not a lot of transparency, and very little progress on important civil rights issues or health care. I am talking to you Mr. Brian Foley. We didn’t elect you to put up with this nonsense. What happened to change and progress? You let them distract you, just like we always do. Democrats never fail to fall apart when it counts, and this late attempt to stop the coup is just the epitome of their attitude towards getting things done.

But, maybe giving the minority party more power will be a good thing in the long run. I think it was certainly a good thing to give the long-standing Republicans a scare. Now they know New York is liberal enough to beat them and they may have changed their attitude as a result. The current rhetoric is nonsense, but I hope Democrats can learn something from this. Keep the bickering behind closed doors, and make unified decisions in a transparent manner. Republicans will continue to do whatever they can to hold on to power. Appreciate it as part of the democratic process and never stop pushing back.

In breaking his and the New York political establishment’s months-long silence about this issue, Smith put a damper on the excitement of members of New York’s gay and lesbian community and other supporters of marriage equality in the state. Since November, when Democrats won control of the Senate for the first time in decades, that silence had been deafening. In theory, marriage equality in New York should be imminent. At the urging of Governor Spitzer, Assembly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in 2007. If such a bill came across his desk, Governor Paterson has said he would sign it into law. The only obstacle, or so it seemed, was the Senate’s long-standing Republican majority, who would not even allow a vote on such a bill.

Then-Minority Leader Malcolm Smith vowed that if his party became the majority in the Senate after the 2008 elections, it would remove the last roadblock to legal same-sex marriage in the state. At an Empire State Pride Agenda fundraiser in 2007, his tone could hardly have been more confident as he declared, “We’re going to make sure [same-sex marriage] happens in ‘08, when we take over the majority.” Same-sex marriage supporters rejoiced, and during the 2008 election season, their money poured into Democrats’ campaigns for marginal seats like the one in New York’s 3rd District that Brian X. Foley captured, with the help of Stony Brook College Democrats, from Cesar Trunzo, the 82-year old Republican dinosaur who had occupied it since 1972.

But no sooner did Democrats capture the requisite 32 seats on Election Day 2008 than hopes for marriage equality began to disintegrate. Three Democratic senators — the so-called “Gang of Three” — refused to caucus with their party and support Smith for majority leader. Among them, two did so because even the chance of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian New Yorkers was enough for them to start an insurrection. The two miscreants were Reubén Díaz, Sr. of the Bronx, a Pentecostal minister positively brimming with anti-gay hatred, and Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, a man so cozy with the old Republican majority that now-indicted former Majority Leader Joe Bruno made him the only minority member in Senate history to be given a committee chairmanship. Suddenly, dramatically, the possibility of marriage equality in 2009, so recently heralded by Mr. Smith, appeared to be up in the air thanks to a few Albany troublemakers.

Eventually, after days of wrangling, Smith made a deal with the Gang of Three. He would become president pro tempore of the Senate (its most senior post), while newly-elected Sen. Pedro Espada, Jr., whose unsavory history includes numerous fines for campaign finance violations and who broke with the party over underrepresentation of Hispanics, not same-sex marriage, would become majority leader. But the deal soon disintegrated over Smith’s misgivings. Perhaps his conscience got at him; a document later published on the New York Times’ web site indicated that the deal would have involved a promise by Smith not to bring a same-sex marriage bill to a vote in the Senate. Regardless of the motive, the deal collapsed shortly after it was supposedly sealed with a handshake and, sickeningly, a prayer from the abominable Rev. Díaz. Yet magically, the Gang of Three all wound up caucusing with the Democrats. Smith became majority leader and president pro tempore. And nobody wanted to talk about same-sex marriage.

“We’re at least two votes away from becoming the first state to legalize same-sex marriage by legislation rather than by court ruling.”

In such a situation one could hardly help but wonder whether some other, less-public deal was brokered, selling out the civil rights of gay and lesbian New Yorkers to keep Díaz and Kruger in the party. For his part, Díaz said he was persuaded to support Smith by his son, a Democratic member of the Assembly and a same-sex marriage supporter. Díaz had earlier said that, were his son up for the post of majority leader, he wouldn’t support him because of his support for gay and lesbian New Yorkers’ civil rights. In such a situation one could hardly help but wonder how committed Malcolm Smith really was to the rights of same-sex couples in this state, whether he would really fight to the bitter end for what he knows is right. One could hardly help but wonder if perhaps the sorry spectacle of Proposition 8 in California had given certain people cold feet. One could hardly help but wonder a lot of things, given the apparent information blackout from Albany and the thoroughly transparent standard cop-out line offered instead: that we really have to focus on the economy right now, as though the expansive government of the State of New York couldn’t cut funding for education and healthcare and ensure equal rights for same-sex couples all at once.

But now we have an answer. Majority Leader Smith is still committed to legalizing same-sex marriage (or so he claims), but he promised in 2007 what he now thinks he can’t deliver in 2009. And indeed, you don’t have to be a math major to figure out that if, as is likely, none of the Senate’s 30 Republicans will vote in favor of marriage equality, nor at least two of the 32 Democrats (the despicable Díaz and the contemptible Kruger), we’re at least two votes away from becoming the first state to legalize same-sex marriage by legislation rather than by a court ruling, as it has been in Connecticut and Massachusetts and, for a little while, California. Smith says he is still working to change that. Now it’s time for him to prove it.

Post-Release Note: This online version of the print article has inconsequential modifications.