Commentary Magazine


Topic: Jim Gerlach

GOP Incumbent Losses Will Hurt Too

For most of the past year, much of the prevailing narrative about the 2014 midterm elections has focused on the flood of Democratic retirements in the Senate that have made retaining control of the upper body an increasingly difficult task. While a certain amount of turnover is usual, the retirement of longtime Democratic incumbents in red states like West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota, as well as vacancies in potential swing states such as Michigan and Iowa have raised the stakes in the competition for the Senate this year. This is all the more crucial since the Democrats are defending far more seats in November, thus raising the prospect of the Senate flipping to the GOP. But anyone who assumes a Republican majority is guaranteed forgets that there were similar opportunities for the GOP to regain the Senate in 2010 and 2012 that were derailed by poor candidates as well as President Obama’s coattails, at least in the latter contest.

Assumptions that the Republicans will hold onto their House majority seem a lot safer. But even there, the loss of incumbents could hurt. While most of the seats that are being vacated in the lower body—whether by retirement or by the member seeking election to the Senate or other offices—are probably safe bets not to change hands, some of those leaving Congress may put their seats in play. The latest example comes from a Republican who was in no danger of losing in November: Pennsylvania’s Jim Gerlach. While Gerlach’s departure that was announced today may not be the difference between a Speaker Boehner or a Speaker Pelosi a year from today, Republicans need to understand that his retirement, like that of fellow Republicans such as New Jersey’s Jon Runyan and Virginia’s Frank Wolf, are individual decisions that could prove crucial if 2014 proves not to be as friendly to the party out of power as is traditionally the case.

Read More

For most of the past year, much of the prevailing narrative about the 2014 midterm elections has focused on the flood of Democratic retirements in the Senate that have made retaining control of the upper body an increasingly difficult task. While a certain amount of turnover is usual, the retirement of longtime Democratic incumbents in red states like West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota, as well as vacancies in potential swing states such as Michigan and Iowa have raised the stakes in the competition for the Senate this year. This is all the more crucial since the Democrats are defending far more seats in November, thus raising the prospect of the Senate flipping to the GOP. But anyone who assumes a Republican majority is guaranteed forgets that there were similar opportunities for the GOP to regain the Senate in 2010 and 2012 that were derailed by poor candidates as well as President Obama’s coattails, at least in the latter contest.

Assumptions that the Republicans will hold onto their House majority seem a lot safer. But even there, the loss of incumbents could hurt. While most of the seats that are being vacated in the lower body—whether by retirement or by the member seeking election to the Senate or other offices—are probably safe bets not to change hands, some of those leaving Congress may put their seats in play. The latest example comes from a Republican who was in no danger of losing in November: Pennsylvania’s Jim Gerlach. While Gerlach’s departure that was announced today may not be the difference between a Speaker Boehner or a Speaker Pelosi a year from today, Republicans need to understand that his retirement, like that of fellow Republicans such as New Jersey’s Jon Runyan and Virginia’s Frank Wolf, are individual decisions that could prove crucial if 2014 proves not to be as friendly to the party out of power as is traditionally the case.

Gerlach’s seat in the Philadelphia suburbs was a key battleground in the last decade as Democrats devoted considerable resources to ousting him. But after the redrawing of district lines by Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled legislature trimmed majority-Democrat towns from his 6th district, Gerlach won in 2012 with better than 57 percent of the vote, his largest majority in six victories. In that same election, Mitt Romney took the sixth with 51 percent of the vote that should, at least in theory, make it a safe red district. But the trend that Republicans have been fighting in the suburbs and exurbs of many major cities is one that runs against the GOP. Though they were once traditional strongholds of Republicans, districts like the sixth have now become battlegrounds.

That shift is partly the result of these formerly heavily white regions becoming more demographically diverse. But it also testifies to the manner in which Democrats have made gains in some swing groups, especially middle-class white women, who have been influenced by liberal rhetoric about the so-called Republican war on women.

His party will miss Gerlach—who was often considered a vulnerable Republican marked for extinction by Democrats—since his retirement moves the district from the safe Republican column to being a swing district. Though the GOP has a marginal edge in registration, the weakness of the top of the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania this year, as Governor Tom Corbett seems to have little chance of reelection, could substantially alter the odds. Mere party affiliation will not hold the sixth for the GOP. The party that nominates the best candidate there will win, regardless of Gerlach’s past success.

The point here is not that this will be the thin edge of a Democratic wedge, but that it, and other potential losses of incumbents, reduces the GOP’s margin of error. Putting together majorities in either the House or the Senate requires a mix of luck, good candidate recruitment, and fundraising. Though Democrats don’t appear likely to win back the House—or at least less so than the GOP is to take the Senate—Gerlach’s departure is bad news for a party that needs its incumbents to stay put every bit as much as their rivals need theirs to remain in office.

Read Less

J Street Loses a Congressional Recruit

Are liberal Democrats starting to be wary of the siren calls of J Street? This story from Philadelphia’s Jewish Exponent shows that at least one congressional candidate has figured out that associating with the far-Left lobby can be dangerous for his political health.

The Exponent’s Bryan Schwartzman reports that Doug Pike, one of the contenders for the Democratic nomination for Pennsylvania’s 6th congressional district, has “asked J Street officials this week to remove him from its list of 41 endorsed candidates, and said he’s planning to return some $6,000 donated via the group.” It appears that Pike, who is fighting for the right to challenge incumbent Republican Jim Gerlach, has gotten the message from voters and contributors that aligning himself with J Street is not the path to the hearts or the wallets of pro-Israel Democrats.

Pike, the son of Otis Pike, a onetime New York congressman, is a former Philadelphia Inquirer editorial writer and is locked in a tough fight against Manan Trivedi, a physician and Iraq-war veteran who has got the endorsement of two key Democratic committees in the district, which stretches across three suburban counties in the western suburbs of Philadelphia. Schwartzman says that one pro-Israel fundraiser claims “a number of potential contributors walked away from Pike after the J Street endorsement became known, and after Gerlach — considered a strong Israel backer — decided not to run for governor.”

Pike told the Exponent that “when he first sought J Street’s endorsement back in September, he had underestimated his policy differences with the group.” Of special interest, in the context of this past week’s dispute between the Obama administration and Israel, is that Pike was “troubled” by J Street’s recent stance that Israel halt construction in eastern Jerusalem because J Street has backed Obama against Netanyahu on the issue of plans to build Jewish homes in an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood. “People simply assumed when they heard that I was endorsed by J Street that I agreed with them on everything,” said Pike. “The endorsement was an impediment to my being able to explain my convictions about Israel’s security.”

Pike’s attempt to extricate himself from J Street’s death grip may or may not save his candidacy, but it ought to serve as a warning to other Democrats who assume that the group’s claim that it is within the mainstream is true. J Street representatives and other left-wingers have asserted that Obama’s 2008 victory — and his huge share of the Jewish vote — proved that mainstream pro-Israel groups like AIPAC no longer represented the community’s view. But, as Pike has found out, most rank-and-file Jewish Democrats, even those who call themselves liberals, do not support putting pressure on Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians and are appalled by the administration’s attack on Jewish rights in Jerusalem.

So is the White House, which has become even more brazen in its open contempt for the Israeli government, capable of understanding what Doug Pike has now discovered — that sooner or later, its attitude toward Israel, which is inspired in part by its misconception that J Street is representative of mainstream Jewish opinion, may be a huge political mistake?

Are liberal Democrats starting to be wary of the siren calls of J Street? This story from Philadelphia’s Jewish Exponent shows that at least one congressional candidate has figured out that associating with the far-Left lobby can be dangerous for his political health.

The Exponent’s Bryan Schwartzman reports that Doug Pike, one of the contenders for the Democratic nomination for Pennsylvania’s 6th congressional district, has “asked J Street officials this week to remove him from its list of 41 endorsed candidates, and said he’s planning to return some $6,000 donated via the group.” It appears that Pike, who is fighting for the right to challenge incumbent Republican Jim Gerlach, has gotten the message from voters and contributors that aligning himself with J Street is not the path to the hearts or the wallets of pro-Israel Democrats.

Pike, the son of Otis Pike, a onetime New York congressman, is a former Philadelphia Inquirer editorial writer and is locked in a tough fight against Manan Trivedi, a physician and Iraq-war veteran who has got the endorsement of two key Democratic committees in the district, which stretches across three suburban counties in the western suburbs of Philadelphia. Schwartzman says that one pro-Israel fundraiser claims “a number of potential contributors walked away from Pike after the J Street endorsement became known, and after Gerlach — considered a strong Israel backer — decided not to run for governor.”

Pike told the Exponent that “when he first sought J Street’s endorsement back in September, he had underestimated his policy differences with the group.” Of special interest, in the context of this past week’s dispute between the Obama administration and Israel, is that Pike was “troubled” by J Street’s recent stance that Israel halt construction in eastern Jerusalem because J Street has backed Obama against Netanyahu on the issue of plans to build Jewish homes in an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood. “People simply assumed when they heard that I was endorsed by J Street that I agreed with them on everything,” said Pike. “The endorsement was an impediment to my being able to explain my convictions about Israel’s security.”

Pike’s attempt to extricate himself from J Street’s death grip may or may not save his candidacy, but it ought to serve as a warning to other Democrats who assume that the group’s claim that it is within the mainstream is true. J Street representatives and other left-wingers have asserted that Obama’s 2008 victory — and his huge share of the Jewish vote — proved that mainstream pro-Israel groups like AIPAC no longer represented the community’s view. But, as Pike has found out, most rank-and-file Jewish Democrats, even those who call themselves liberals, do not support putting pressure on Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians and are appalled by the administration’s attack on Jewish rights in Jerusalem.

So is the White House, which has become even more brazen in its open contempt for the Israeli government, capable of understanding what Doug Pike has now discovered — that sooner or later, its attitude toward Israel, which is inspired in part by its misconception that J Street is representative of mainstream Jewish opinion, may be a huge political mistake?

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.