We Won. Weird.*

For the first time in about four years, the GOP had what could reasonably be described as a successful election night.  Patrick has covered the strategic implications of this nicely; I would only add a reminder that our concerns aren't academic; in 2008 we left fifteen Republican-leaning districts held by Democrats uncontested, many of which were in areas of the country where Obama severely underperformed, and which could have been susceptible to negative coattails this time around.  This can't be allowed to happen in 2010 if we want to seriously contest control of the House.  And this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the success of candidates like Cao probably can be used to induce more challengers into races in districts that are much more naturally competitive.

I also think the apparent win of John Fleming (pending recounts and counting of provisional ballots) is good news for Republicans.  Had this election been held pre-November 4, I feel pretty comfortable saying Republicans would have lost.  Given the extreme narrowness of the win, it is more ambiguous than I would have liked, but nevertheless this is the exact type of district Republicans were losing in special elections earlier in 2008.  In fact, Republicans lost districts a lot like this in 1998 (MS-04), 2002 (LA-05, TN-04), and 2004 (LA-03), and 2008 (AL-02, AL-05).  Of course, we won a lot of these types of districts in the timeframe as well.

At any rate, I think the best we can say about this race is that we have another datapoint, but it lies on the "improvement from 2004-2008" side of the ledger.  Then again, MA-05 would have fallen on that side of the ledger as well, but the consecutive good results in GA and LA gives greater cause for hope for Republicans since early 2005.  Which is saying something.

Along these lines, I think it is useful to resurrect an old chart I made, which compiles the number of seats held by Republicans against the party that held the Presidency, going back to Roosevelt.  There's an obvious trend here.  Political scientists have debated the reason for this, but I'm partial to the theory that the American people instinctively wish to balance out the party that holds the Presidency.  In close races like LA-04 and LA-02, that tendency can make the difference.  Hopefully that trend will continue into 2010, and close races Republicans lost in 2008 like IL-14, MS-01, and LA-06 will have different outcomes.  Of course, recruiting quality candidates and raising money will go a long way to accomplishing that goal.**

*hat tip to Kos for coming up with this title after his party's successful 2005 elections.