More analysis of the 2010 vote from the Monkey Cage:
Did votes on the controversial bills (stimulus, cap and trade, TRAP and heath care) the past two years make a real difference in the elections? Overall, the answer is no, but for those Democrats who were defeated (many of whome were in districts that did not vote for Obama in 2008), the answer seems to be yes. There's the outside (very outside) chance that had these Democrats all voed against these bills that Democrats woudl stil be in the majority.
What does this model tell us about roll call votes on these four bills? Simple answer: they mattered. A lot. A Democratic incumbent in the average district represented by Democratic incumbents actually lost about 2/3 of a percentage point for every yes vote. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that's for incumbents in districts that voted 63% for Obama.
For Democrats in the least Democratic districts (Chet Edwards of TX or Gene Taylor of MS), the model suggests a loss of about 4% for every yes vote. Does that mean poor Chet lost 16 points on roll call votes alone? No, because he wasn't a big supporter of Obama's agenda. But he did vote for both TARP and the stimulus. In fact, virtually every Democratic incumbent on the ballot yesterday supported at least one of these four bills. That support was costly.
Again, this suggests that what really matters more than votes, is the way that districts are drawn. Had each district been more balanced, not gerrymandered one way or the other, the election would have turned out differently. What does this tell us about democracy?
