What the election results may forecast
Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, today makes an argument why yesterday’s election may not forecast much for anyone. (See here and here.) She relies heavily on statistics from past elections. Unfortunately, her analysis dwells too much on the raw numbers, almost neglecting the context in which the results occurred. In other words, counting up the number of time a Democrat or Republican won the gubernatorial election in New Jersey and/or Virginia without the context in which those elections occurred may miss important information that leaves the analysis wanting.
I will not tackle what I consider a failing of her analysis here. Instead, I will make the argument that, assuming these elections can tell us something, the message is more in favor of Democrats than Republicans, as many news outlets may report. At its core, arguing that yesterday was a positive message for Republicans is akin to the Marcus’ error: it amounts to counting up the number of wins without attention to the context. There are at least three reasons why the GOP gubernatorial wins don’t say much about congressional elections: First, the wins for the GOP in New Jersey and Virginia says little about how people are viewing President Obama. This is confirmed by exit polls in those two states where voters said that Obama was not a factor in their vote. See, for example, here. Second, a governorship is a position farther removed from national politics than many other positions, especially congressional positions. That is, whether a particular state votes for a Republican or Democrat as governor, there is not necessarily a connection between that and the party majority of the state’s residents vote for in a presidential or congressional race. For example, residents of New England states regularly vote for Republican governors but rarely vote for Republican congressmen/women or senators. Governors are far from Washington, politically speaking, and have limited influence on what comes out of Washington. Third, the two Democratic governors who lost their races yesterday were each running on his own, very long, records. Their loss can easily be seen as a result of their achievements or lack there off as governors. Now if we consider the race in New York’s 23’rd congressional race, on the other hand, the above discussion suggests that if there is any message at all, it is one favoring Democrats. But beyond the discussion above, there is another very important message that was sent by NY-23. The voters chose the Democrat over the conservative candidate when embodied all of what GOP leaders have been espousing. The voters did so after the GOP ran off its own candidate who the people actually favored. In other words, the voters favored and chose a GOP candidate who was in favor of many of President Obama’s policies. Prominent conservatives such as Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty ran off the GOP candidate, effectively replacing that candidate with one off their own stripes. These prominent conservatives argued for a more insular Republican party, demanded it, and got their way. The voters, on the other hand, would have none of it. As a result, a district that hasn’t elected a Democratic representative since 1978 (in some parts of the district, since 1850)* revolted, choosing a candidate it thought would best represent it in congress. The message from the district is that the individual who can best represent the district in congress is someone who favors many of President Obama’s policies. * As a result of redistricting, different part of the district last voted for a republican at different times. |