On November 2, 2010, just 2 years after the historic election of President Barack Obama, the Republican Party stormed into the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, picking up 63 seats for a total majority of 242–192.¹ (At press time, one House race remains undecided—in New York’s 1st Congressional District, Democratic incumbent Rep. Tim Bishop holds a 235-vote edge over Republican opponent Randy Altschuler. A state judge has yet to decide the fate of around 2000 ballots, which have been the subject of challenges by the two campaigns.²)

This sweep places the all-important committee chairmanships in the hands of Republicans for the first time since 2006 and sees Ohio Republican John Boehner assume the role of Speaker of the House. Ousted Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi will remain in a leadership position, serving as minority leader in the House.

As a victory, it was more decisive than the Republicans’ 1994 Gingrich-inspired “revolution,” when the Republican Party picked up 54 seats³ and undid the gains Democrats had made in House elections since 2004.

How much this swing represents an ideological shift within the U.S. electorate remains to be seen—after all, Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 were short-lived. But these results point to voter frustration with the state of the economy and the first 2 years of the Obama administration.

On the Senate side, Democrats held onto their majority, but only barely, losing six seats and leaving them with a 53–47 margin. However, were it not for help from an unlikely source, things could have been so much worse for the Democrats. In the weeks building up to the election, Democratic heavyweights such as President Obama and former President Clinton were dispatched to states and districts around the country on behalf of candidates. Yet for all of that, the role of the Tea Party Movement must be considered when analyzing how the Democrats clung to their Senate majority.

The Conservative movement commonly known as the Tea Party had been gaining momentum since the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Led—informally—by former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the Tea Party gained national and international recognition by winning a series of Republican primaries to ensure the nomination of Conservative candidates for offices across the country. Despite the relative success of this approach (of the 10 Senate candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin, six won their elections and will be sworn in as senators in January), some of the candidates either endorsed or inspired by the Tea Party proved too extreme for voters in the general election, thus ensuring the election of more moderate or even left-leaning Democrats.

Nevada

One of the biggest races in the country played out in Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was considered almost unelectable. Cast as the architect of President Obama’s health reform effort in a state hit harder than most by the collapse of the economy, few expected Reid to hold on, despite his position of power as Senate Majority Leader. Yet the Republican candidate—Tea Partier Sharron Angle—proved even less electable. To call her campaign gaffe-prone would be an understatement—she urged in favor of the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations, advocated the privatization of Medicare, and compared Social Security to “welfare.” Her campaign proved too much, even in a state like Nevada, which prides itself on its eccentricity. To his relief (and perhaps surprise), Harry Reid eventually won by a respectable margin of 5%.⁴

Delaware

In Delaware, a similar situation was emerging in the race for the seat vacated by Joe Biden when he was sworn in as vice president. Popular Delaware Congressman Mike Castle was considered the likely victor when he announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in this race. His eight terms as at large House member for Delaware were preceded by terms in the state House and Senate, as well as terms serving as lieutenant governor and governor. Rep. Castle was a much admired public figure in the state of Delaware, to say the least.

So voters in Delaware and political observers nationwide were shocked when the little-known Christine O’Donnell was nominated as the Republican candidate for the Senate. A conservative activist for most of her career, O’Donnell campaigned on the issue of runaway government spending—a message that resonated in this small state, particularly as Castle is considered one of the most liberal members of the Republican Party. Castle can be blamed for not taking her candidacy seriously—he even refused to debate her—yet it seemed unlikely that a political novice like O’Donnell would defeat a Delaware political legend.

Nevertheless, with the backing of the Tea Party and national conservative leaders, O’Donnell defeated Castle to secure the Republican nomination. Unlike Republicans in Florida and Alaska who chose to run as Independents after their failure to secure their party’s nomination, Castle declined the opportunity to run, setting the stage for a face-off between O’Donnell and Democratic nominee Chris Coons, a Delaware county executive. With a prize as grand as a seat in the U.S. Senate up for grabs, this race had a surreal element to it—underscored by some truly bizarre allegations of witchcraft and bickering over the question of church and state in the U.S. Constitution.

Coons eventually won the race by a margin of 57% to 40%,⁵ although no one is quite clear on where bragging rights lie. O’Donnell, in picking up 40% of the vote despite her political inexperience and controversial campaign, could take pride in giving a voice to the real sense of dissatisfaction voters felt about the Washington establishment. Coons, despite winning the seat, must wonder how he would have fared against a more conventional candidate.

Colorado

In Colorado, a fiercely bitter battle took place between incumbent Democrat Michael Bennett and Republican challenger Ken Buck. Fueled by Tea Party rhetoric and money, Buck sought to cast Bennett as an Obama liberal and attacked him for his support of health care reform and high government spending. The race turned into one of the most expensive in the country.⁶

Democrats fought to keep their grip on a state they had boasted “turned blue” in the 2008 election, whereas Republicans saw fertile ground for their message in a low-tax state that embraces the values of “rugged individualism.” In the end, the Tea Party–backed Buck was defeated narrowly by Bennett—Buck’s lack of political experience and extreme positions on certain issues (at one point, he called for the privatization of the Veteran’s Affairs Health Program⁷) were blamed for the loss in what has proved to be a terrible year for incumbent Democrats.

So What Does This Mean for the Tea Party?

The answer to this question is very much a case of whether the glass is seen as “half-full or half-empty.” Clearly, the momentum has returned the conservative movement, after being in retreat for 4 years since the Democrats took the House in 2006. There is no question that incumbents in both parties are only too aware of the concern among voters about our nation’s spiraling deficit. The message is clear—Congress is on probation, and if its members can’t fix the nation’s financial problems, elect people who can.

That said, the fact that Democrats retained control of the Senate, despite the clear sense of voter anger, suggests that the candidates nominated in the Republican primaries were simply too extreme to be viable in the general election. Veteran political commentator Stu Rothenberg, for example, described Senator Harry Reid as a “political basket case”⁸ before Sharron Angle’s candidacy unraveled, leaving the door open for Reid’s reelection. In Delaware, given Rep. Castle’s status and name recognition, it seemed almost inconceivable that he wouldn’t be the next Senator from Delaware—until he was unable to persuade his own party to nominate him.

Republicans in Washington are working hard to reach out to the Tea Party conservatives across the country, especially their new colleagues on Capitol Hill, and are reluctant to speculate on whether the Tea Party helped or hindered their effort in November. But off the record, there are certainly whispers within the Beltway that had they fielded a more moderate field of candidates, Republicans would be welcoming not only Speaker Boehner but also Senate Majority Leader McConnell when the 112th Congress is sworn in, January 2011.

ACCP Political Action Committee

ACCP first opened its Washington office in 2000 so that the College could be actively invested in advocacy and government affairs efforts. During the past decade, ACCP has expanded its Washington staff, launched the ACCP/ASHP/VCU Health Care Policy Fellow program, and developed its grassroots capabilities through the ACCP Advocates.

ACCP is confident that this investment is worthwhile. It has allowed the College to significantly raise its profile in Washington and participate actively in efforts such as the Pharmacy Stakeholders Coalition, which helped secure the clinical pharmacy provisions included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) signed into law by President Obama.

The College’s advocacy efforts—direct lobbying and grassroots action—have yielded considerable progress, as evidenced by the recognition of pharmacists’ valued contributions to the patient care team.

But as the focus of the health care reform implementation process moves away from Capitol Hill and into federal agencies and communities across the country, we must further expand our advocacy capabilities to help ensure the success of the programs already authorized by the recently enacted health care reform law and help expand these programs moving forward.

ACCP-PAC Governing Council

The ACCP-PAC is overseen by the PAC Governing Council, composed of the following ACCP members:

Why Support the ACCP-PAC?

It is no secret that one of the biggest hurdles a candidate must overcome when seeking elected office is the cost of mounting a campaign. Television commercials, literature, pollsters, and political consultants are all necessary but expensive campaign investments.

As a result, elected officials depend on organizations like the ACCP-PAC for financial support as much as they depend on our professional expertise and input in the legislative and policy arenas. Although no official connection exists between policy outcomes and political contributions, a PAC can increase our visibility on Capitol Hill and strengthen our relationships with congressional leaders.

Thank You!

We hope you will support this exciting new development for ACCP. For more information, please contact ACCP’s Associate Director, Government Affairs, at (202) 621-1820 or [email protected]. Also, ACCP will cover all the administrative expenses associated with operating the PAC, so all donations go directly to support pro–clinical pharmacy candidates.

References

1. Source: New York Times article: 2010 Election House Map. Available at http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/house. Accessed December 3, 2010.
2. Source: Wall Street Journal article: Democrat Has Edge in Undecided US House Race. Available at http://online.wsj.com/article/APf94ff5bb6f744530a1ad224d4221768f.html. Accessed December 3, 2010.
3. Source: Wikipedia. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_1994. Accessed December 3, 2010.
4. Source: AOL Politics Daily article: Nevada Senate Race. Available at http://www.politicsdaily.com/tag/Nevada%20Senate%20Race/. Accessed December 3, 2010.
5. Source: ABC News article: Tea Lacks Punch in Delaware as Coons Wins Senate. Available at http://www.webcitation.org/5u5qMfAJw. Accessed December 3, 2010.
6. Source: Center for Responsive Politics. Available at http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=CO. Accessed December 3, 2010.
7. Source: YouTube video. Ken Buck Calls for Privatizing Hospitals. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A-Ls9wFobo. Accessed December 3, 2010.
8. Source: Roll Call article: Senate Is in Play, but GOP Has Reasons to Worry. Available at http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_10/-48570-1.html. Accessed December 3, 2010.