The Democrats just won by a margin of 107 votes, an off-year, special election in Iowa’s House District 90. The race was interesting, and maybe even important, because off-year elections allow one to see which direction the political wind is blowing.

This race was also the first contest after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage in Iowa is legal on the grounds that it is a constitutionally protected civil liberty. Because it is the first test of how the gay marriage issue might play out, “outside” groups poured huge amounts of money into the race. The National Organization for Marriage was prominent, and pro-gay marriage groups opened their wallets more than expected in such a seemingly insignificant contest.

So what does the victory of the Democrat tell us?

First, it tells us the gay marriage issue, the prominent campaign theme, was not enough to swing this election.

Second, it tells us little about support for gay marriage because although Republican Stephen Burgmeier was the recipient of the anti-gay marriage largesse, Democrat Curt Hanson didn’t actually support gay marriage. So, the choice was between two candidates opposed to gay marriage, one of whom was the standard bearer of that cause and the other emphasizingother issuesmore.

Outsiders actually stoked the emphasis on gay marriage. Burgmeier himself may not have made that the central storm of this race. That is a lesson to take away from this election.

Third, the Republican should have won the race, because when there are open seats, the “out” party in that jurisdiction [District 90] has the best chance of winning.

Fourth, judging from the private reaction of Republicans with whom I have spoken, this was a big disappointment for the GOP.

Fifth, this race has put front and center the question of whether gay marriage is a “good” issue for Republicans to run on in 2010. Several Republican gubernatorial contenders have said this would be their lead campaign issue.

On the other hand, Rep. Steve King has decided not to run, and many insiders have told me it’s because he believes that he could not run for governor successfully on his anti-illegal immigration and anti-gay marriage positions. Illegal immigration has shrunk as a hot button since issues such as jobs and health-care costs are more urgent for Iowa voters in 2010.

Sixth, the pending announcement that former Gov. Terry Branstad will run for governor has shown the GOP a need to use its former winning strategy of walking the political center as the most successful road to office. Branstad and former Gov. Robert Ray found success by concentrating on non-divisive issues and harvesting majorities.

There is no indication from GOP contests in the near past that moving to a more conservative end of the political spectrum is a winning move. Thus, the race for the vacant seat in the 90th district adds fuel to the struggle within the Iowa GOP and is giving new life to that “bigger tent” of GOP leaders, candidates and voters who are not solely concerned with divisive social issues.

Seventh, the race suggests the GOP needs to re-examine its bigger course. The party is running behind both “no-party” and Democrats in registered supporters and has lost some 100,000 adherents,e trailing in third place. Although not framed in these “political science” terms, the Iowa GOP appears to have moved toward the “ideological political party,” where it adheres to clear and hard positions on social issues regardless of the high-intensity concerns of Iowa voters.

Although admirable for its clarity and integrity, this is the position taken by “Parties of Principle” (the Libertarians, Greens or Socialists), whereas elections in the United States are won by “Parties of Pragmatism”: Democrats and Republicans.

Pragmatic parties adjust their message and position to meet the interests of voters and gain a majority or plurality of those voters and win the election. Parties of Principle do not yield on their positions regardless of the mood and demand of voters, and only win when and if their hard position actually fits the current concerns of the electorate.

Republicans lost the 2008 election partially because of the true believers on the conservative right, especially media celebrities like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and others. They attacked Republican candidate Sen. John McCain for not being conservative enough, forced him to choose Sarah Palin as running mate and pushed McCain far right on issues, which put him too far to the right. They also lost him the independents both parties need to “peel off” if they are to win elections.

Conservative Republicans have forgotten that no true conservative has ever won a national election. Ronald Reagan, former Democrat and tax-raising California governor, never was identified with the divisive issues that color the current party. George H. W. Bush was a moderate. George W. Bush was a hard-core hawk and NeoCon on defense, but campaigned as a “compassionate conservative.”

This race is a case study of how these issues come together, and it forces the GOP to study the results. For supporters of gay marriage and for Democrats in Iowa, the race is a cautionary tale, because the Democrat who won does not support gay marriage. That issue will simmer in 2010.

-(C)2009 Steffen Schmidt, professor of political science, ISU. Reprinted with permission from syndication at insideriowa.com, Iowa’s Internet Magazine.