NY-26 and Medicare

Democrats are ecstatic over Tuesday's special election victory by Democrat Kathy Hochul in the special election to replace Republican Chris "Craigslist Lothario" Lee. Before we get too carried away with trying to analyze this, let's look at the result.

Hochul(D) 47%
Corwin (R) 43%
Davis (Tea) 9%

The first thing that should strike you about this result is that the Republican plus the Tea Party candidate would defeat Hochul. If we add the 1% the Green Party nomineee received to Hochul's total, we see that the GOP/Tea defeated the Dem/Greens 52/48.

Now, based on the last two Presidential elections we can identify this as an R+6 district. This is the most Republican district in New York, but by national standards it merely has a serious Republican lean. We would expect the Republicans to win, but the seat is hardly out of reach, especially if the Republicans screw the pooch as they did here.

Also, the Democrats are on a bit of a hot stretch after the capture of Osama bin Laden. According to the Real Clear Politics average on Tuesday, Obama's approval rating was 53%. If we say roughly that the election occurred in a D+3 environment, we would expect the GOP to take it 53-47, one point off the combined results.

Keep in mind also the turnout was abysmal, as turnout was less than half of the turnout in the noncompetitive 2010 election. Republicans also seem to do poorly in special elections. In short, this result was no surprise under the circumstances.

The Democrats see this result as a vindication of Medicare. Hochul ran strongly on preserving the system and the Republicans voiced support for changes along the line of the Paul Ryan voucher system. As we've seen, there is zero evidence that Medicare was a factor in this election. Taking this election as a mandate of the status quo on Medicare would be a huge mistake.

This brings us to another, more important point. Democrats point out Medicare is popular and people oppose changes. They are right. However, this does not change the fact that left unchanged Medicare will singlehandedly destroy the federal budget. In short, we cannot afford the Medicare we have now. Even if we could, the system going forward won't be the same one people like now. Due to rising costs, more and more seniors are finding fewer and fewer doctors are accepting Medicare. Increasingly, Medicare will mean longer waits, fewer options, and worse treatments. Is that what we're trying to save?

The idea of "saving Medicare" is what President Obama likes to call a false choice. Medicare must be altered. The manner in which it is altered is a manner of legitimate debate, but saving the status quo is not. The Democrats risk missing the boat politically and policywise by misinterpreting this special election.
This is the rest of the post