New York Special Election Is Special Case

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON — Voters in a House district in New York will elect a replacement on Tuesday for Kirsten E. Gillibrand, the Democrat who replaced Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Senate after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state.

Even before a vote was cast, the contest was freighted with all kinds of political significance — an early test of President Obama’s political strength, a verdict on the stimulus package, a do-or-die moment for a new Republican national chairman, an early sign of how the 2010 midterm elections are going to go (never mind that they are 20 months way).

To a certain extent, all this is understandable. The new president has invested some political capital in the Democratic candidate, Scott Murphy. Mr. Obama’s image appears in an advertisement that the Democratic National Committee ran in the upstate district — albeit not often — and Mr. Obama’s name is affixed to thousands of e-mail messages that the national committee sent out urging voters to support Mr. Murphy. And Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has taped a radio advertisement on Mr. Murphy’s behalf.

Michael Steele, the new Republican chairman who is trying to get beyond a rocky start, has identified this race as a top target for the Republican National Committee. He has campaigned in the district twice on behalf of the Republican candidate, James N. Tedisco, a state assemblyman. Mr. Steele has directed money and resources toward winning the seat, which was solidly Republican until Ms. Gillibrand snatched it away from a troubled incumbent in 2006.

It is also the first special election since Mr. Obama took office — “It’s the only game in D.C. for people to talk about,” said David Wasserman, House editor of the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter — and the contest is being fought against the backdrop of the sharp partisan division over Mr. Obama’s economic plan.

“It’s going to be seen as a referendum on President Obama and the stimulus package, and a referendum on Albany’s popularity, and a referendum on Gillibrand’s popularity,” said Howard Wolfson, a Democratic consultant who advised Ms. Gillibrand in her 2006 campaign.

In truth, special elections tend to get more attention and analysis than they deserve (guilty, your honor), and while they might briefly raise or lower the political temperature, they tend not to be predictive of much at all. And in this case, there are many extraneous factors at play, and there is enough conflicting data about the political dynamics of the race to permit either side to make at least a plausible argument that it will win.

“The first thing you can count on is this thing is going to be way overspun,” said Tom Davis, a former Virginia congressman and onetime head of the Republican campaign committee in the House. “I don’t think it portends a thing for the midterms. But it emboldens whoever wins.”

That said, a few lessons will certainly be drawn from the race.

The decision by the Democratic National Committee to feature Mr. Obama — understandable, given his popularity — could carry some small risk to the president. Should Mr. Murphy lose, the result will be seized on by Republicans as evidence that Mr. Obama’s power is fading, though how far this line of thought will travel is an open question.

“I think that’s why he only put a toe in,” Mr. Davis said. “The tradition on this is, in special elections, the president’s candidate typically loses.”

Potentially more interesting, though, is what the vote will say about the political potency of the battle over the stimulus package — whether House Republicans, who voted unanimously against it, made a mistake in putting up a unified front.

Mr. Murphy supported the package; Mr. Tedisco equivocated until, after being taunted by Democrats, he finally said he would have voted against it. By every account, Mr. Tedisco’s awkward handling of the issue helped to transform the race.

“Here’s what I think you do know here: when the Democrats stood strong — when Murphy said, ‘I support the stimulus plan’ — he closed the gap 30 points,” said Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff. “You know and I know this should not be dead even.”

Mr. Wasserman, of the Cook Report, said: “The race is pretty even right now. But it didn’t start out that way. Republicans started with a known figure. Democrats started off with someone who isn’t known.”

In the closing stage of the campaign, Republicans attempted to focus attention on the Democratic Congress’s deletion of a clause in the stimulus bill that might have prevented the payment of some bonuses to executives of American Insurance Group. Mr. Tedisco used the move to link Mr. Murphy, a venture capitalist, to the bonuses issue, a flash point for many voters.

Until Ms. Gillibrand’s victory in 2006, the 20th Congressional District was solidly Republican; it was one of just six districts in the state that voted for George W. Bush in 2000.

In 2004, the Republican incumbent, John E. Sweeney, was re-elected with 66 percent of the vote; two years later, he narrowly lost to Ms. Gillibrand after his campaign became embroiled in a series of embarrassing episodes. Still, Republicans enjoy a 75,000 edge in voter registration in the district.

“The fact this race is close at all is a big deal,’” said Jen O’Malley Dillon, the executive director of the Democratic National Committee. “It’s a tough, tough district.”

Trevor Francis, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said much the same thing, as both sides gave a preview of what they might be saying Tuesday night.

“This is going to be a tough one,” Mr. Francis said. “Obama won the district and has a 65-percent approval rating there.”