Democrats spin special election results

By Tony Phyrillas

Caution! You are about to enter the "No Spin Zone." With apologies to Bill O'Reilly, welcome to The Phyrillas Factor.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party along with its allies in the blogosphere and an ultra-liberal newspaper in Berks County have been working feverishly this past week to persuade anyone who will listen that a special election for a vacant state Senate seat has statewide, and even national, significance.

The spin put out by the Democrats and their allies goes something like this: The election of Democrat Judy Schwank to complete the final two years of the term held by the late Sen. Mike O'Pake is a message to Gov. Tom Corbett to raise taxes and not cut state spending, and to governors across the nation to leave unions alone.

"This election has marked a change in momentum, and one that we will carry through the 2012 elections," said state Sen. Daylin Leach, chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee.

Oh, please!

Anyone who believes the election of a Democratic candidate in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 2-1 margin is a seismic shift in the political landscape needs to put down the Kool-Aid.

Schwank won the seat O'Pake held for 38 years by a comfortable margin (58 percent to 42 percent) but the six-week campaign was hardly a referendum on state or national issues. (O'Pake won 71 percent of the vote when he last ran in 2008.)

Schwank and her Republican opponent, Larry Medaglia, agreed on most key issues, including lowering property taxes, creating a more business-friendly climate in Pennsylvania, fiscal responsibility and reforming the state Legislature.

If anything, the special election was seen by many Berks County residents as a way to pay a final tribute to the popular O'Pake, the only state Senator most Berks voters knew. Schwank shrewdly positioned herself as the heir to O'Pake's legacy. She invoked his name at every public appearance and in campaign literature. She also made a point to publicly announce she would keep most of O'Pake's staffers if she was elected.

Schwank won a heavily--Democratic district because labor unions in Berks County, and especially in the city of Reading, managed to get their supporters to the polls. Labor unions also accounted for most of Schwank's campaign contributions.

So before Democrats pop the champagne bottles thinking they've stopped the hemorrhaging from last year's disastrous midterm elections, let's step back and take in a dose of reality.

Turnout for the March 15 election was higher than anticipated at 22 percent, but still pitiful when you consider that eight out of 10 voters in the 11th Senate District did not bother to show up.

What is the significance of Schwank getting the opportunity to finish the remaining two years of O'Pake's term? Absolutely nothing.

Republicans held 30 of the 50 seats in the state Senate before the March 15 election. Republicans hold 30 of the 50 seats after the election.

Schwank winning the 11th District is akin to a Kennedy winning in Massachusetts. It's what you expect. Had Medaglia won, it would have been one of the biggest political upsets in Pennsylvania political history. Something similar to Republican Scott Brown winning Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat in the 2010 special election.

You could even make the argument that residents of the 11th Senate District are worse off today than they were before Schwank won the election. After nearly 40 years in the Senate, O'Pake was the No. 2 leader among Senate Democrats. He built strong relationships on both sides of the aisle and had clout to get legislation passed. Schwank is now the Democrat with the least seniority in the Senate and ranks 50 in terms of clout. She will never get a bill passed and the Republican leadership in the Senate will make sure she doesn't get any money for projects back home.

Had Medaglia won, the Republican governor and legislative leaders would have steered state funding into the 11th District to bolster his chances of winning a full four-year term in 2012.

So why all the hoopla? Pennsylvania Democrats suffered a string of embarrassing defeats in 2010 and were desperate to win something — anything. The special election was the closest thing to a high-profile race anywhere in the state this year. Demoralized Democrats needed a win. Even table scraps are a banquet to a starving man.

How bad was 2010 for Pennsylvania Democrats? The party lost a U.S. Senate seat, five U.S. House seats, the governor's mansion and the majority it held in the state House for four years. Democrats failed to pick up a single state Senate seat last November despite pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into races across the state.

So keeping a state Senate seat that has been in Democratic hands since the district was created in 1961 — one that was never in danger of going over to the Republican column — is the glimmer of hope some Dems need to step away from the ledge.

That speaks volumes about the challenges Pennsylvania Democrats face in 2011 and 2012 to prevent becoming a permanent minority party.

Sen.-elect Schwank will be sworn in sometime in April, but nothing has changed in Harrisburg.

Tony Phyrillas, who writes about politics for The Mercury, won a first place award for column writing in 2010 from the Pennsylvania Associated Press Managing Editors.