The 2014 results in perspective

Not great for Democrats, but not an historically large loss.

From the Pew Research Center: Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections, but why?

Here's the data:



And an explanation:

Though political scientists long have noted the midterm dropoff, they don’t agree on precisely what it means. In an influential 1987 article, James E. Campbell theorized that “the surge of interest and information in presidential elections” typically works to the advantage of one party or the other; that party’s partisans become more likely to vote, while those of the disadvantaged party are more likely to stay home during presidential elections. Independents, “lacking a standing partisan commitment…should divide disproportionately in favor of the advantaged party.” Midterm elections lack that “wow” factor, according to Campbell, and turnout among both partisans and independents return to more normal levels and patterns. 

A recent paper by Brown University researcher Brian Knight seeks to evaluate that surge-and-decline theory, as well as two competing explanations of why the president’s party nearly always loses seats at the midterms: a “presidential penalty,” or general preference among midterm voters for expressing dissatisfaction with the president’s performance or ensuring that his party doesn’t control all the levers of government, and recurring shifts in voter ideology between presidential and midterm elections. Knight concluded that while all three factors contribute to what he calls the “midterm gap,” the presidential penalty has the most impact.

2010 Election Spending

Here's a link to the Center for Responsive Politics page detailing total spending on the 2010 midterm elections.

Their history page puts this year's spending in perspective.

In case you are wondering what that money is spent on, read this: Call it the midterm stimulus program. The record-breaking campaign showered billions of dollars on a broad array of companies, including broadcast conglomerates, polling firms and small-town restaurants, according to a Washington Post analysis of expenditure reports. Candidates spent at least $50 million on catering and liquor, $3.2 million at country clubs and golf courses, and $500,000 on pizza, coffee and doughnuts, the records show.

2010 Election Results

Here are a few links with last week's election results.

It's worth noting that despite the fact that Republicans did so well in U.S. House races, all area representatives were comfortably reelected. The 2003 gerrymandering seems to have been well done. Republicans did make significant gains in the Texas House though.

From the Houston Chronicle:
- Houston area representatives and state senators.
- Statewide races.
- Harris County results.
- Brazoria County results.
- Galveston County results.

Results from the Texas Secretary of State's office.

From The Hill
- New Members Guide.

The Young, the Old, and the Election of 2010

This chart may say all you need to know about what happened between 2008 and 2010:


This is what exit polls tell us was the age breakdown among those who voted in the past two elections. Obama supporters didn't show up -- the young returned to form. They tend not to vote in midterm elections, and didn't once again. The get out the vote drives did not work.

It might also tell us why, despite what people are saying about reducing the size of government, Medicare, Social Security and defense spending (the big three) are all off the table. The old support them all. Also, assuming the young show up to vote in 2012 in comparable numbers to 2008, how stable is the Republican majority?

Democrats Can Blame the Young

As expected, the old are voting more than the young, and this has benefitted the Republican Party more than the Democrats.

A More Humble Republican Party?

David Brooks thinks this Republican Party will be more reserved than they were in 1994, when their arrogance led to clumsy mistakes and Clinton's re-election.

62 + .62*256 -1.4*7.4 + 0.1*9.7 = 211.33 Democratic seats

That's the formula one polisci guy uses to predict the number of seats Democrats are likely to have in the House after the election is over. The argument is that much of the results of midterm elections are structural, that is, based on circumstances apart from any attitude one has about the president. The model predicts that given the nature of the last election and the current economic condition, Democrats should expect to lose 45 seats. Any less means they did well, any more means they did poorly.

Math is fun.

Some History

The President's party, with exceptions in 1998 and 2002, tends to lose seats -- both in the U.S. and State Houses, in midterm elections. Here's proof. The rationale is that the party out of power is more mobilized than the one in power.

Two Forecasts

Charlie Cook.

Nate Silver.

Winning Elections vs. Governing: They Are Not the Same

Daniel Larison ponders whether Republicans will be able govern effectively if they win control of Congress. The skills that allow one to win elections (divisiveness, stirring up conflict and disputes) are not the same as those that allow you to govern (ability to compromise and bargain).

. . . Republican gains are not driven by popular support for a positive Republican agenda of any kind. Neither are they being driven by an ideological rejection of the administration’s agenda. One can defend or mock the “Pledge to America,” and one can sympathize with or scorn Tea Partiers, but neither of them has much to do with reviving GOP political fortunes.


The reality is that Republican gains this year are the product of immense economic discontent and anxiety to which few conservatives have plausible answers. . . .

And of course if they cannot find those answers, they will face the same criticism before the 2012 election that Democrats are facing now.

Do Campaigns Matter?

Here's some evidence that they may not.

It's a common point made by political scientists. Some analyses suggest that pocketbook economic conditions (change in disposable income) six months prior to an election best predicts election results. That being the case, the slip in the economy that began around April and May may have doomed any chance Democrats had of a good result, but history has consistently show that -- all things equal -- the party out of power is more motivated to vote in midterm elections than the party in power.

Stories for 8/31/10

A few relevant items today:

- A Washington Post story illustrating the difficulty party's have enforcing unity among their members: A freshman Republican goes against the leadership on Afghanistan.

- The National Beer Wholesalers Association works the Hill.

- Wall Street turns on Obama.

- Does Language Shape How You Think? Politicians have known that words matter for quite some time. An entire industry has emerged around determining which words lead people to think a particular way. Can an entire language do the same?

- Glenn Beck follows his rally with a launch of a new web site.

- The electoral landscape looks better and better for Republicans.

Democrats Hope to Get Out The Vote

Again, from Slatest:

Democrats Hope Young and Minority Voters Return to Polls

Democrats are pinning their hopes—and their war chest—on enticing young and minority voters back to the polls this fall. Typically, both parties focus on bringing out their reliable base in midterm elections. But this year, Democrats have carved out $50 million to spend on trying to bring 2008's 15 million first-time voters back to the polls. Like in 2008, Democrats plan to get out the vote by canvassing door-to-door and spending heavily on the Web. But will this strategy be successful in "a political climate in which hope and exhilaration has given way to anger and disappointment" where the momentum has shifted to the Republicans? Some party organizers are skeptical of the approach and think the money should be spent in more traditional ways, like on television ads. "I think they're going to come in for a very rude awakening. It's going to be brutal," one organizer said.

The Washington Post Sunday, June 20, 2010

This fits with 2301s' discussion about elections. Democrats did especially well in 2008 because young and minority voters actually voted. The party took names and number and hopes to use them to repeat that performance.