MIDTERM ELECTIONS – NOVEMBER 2ND 2010

Context

2008 Elections The Democratic Party won a big majority in the two houses of Congress in 2008, building on their narrower victory in 2006 (in which they retook the HoR for the first time since 1994). In the autumn of 2010 Democrats held 256 seats (out of 435) in the House, if you include one vacant seat that was most recently occupied by a Democrat. The Republican Party needed to take 39 seats from the Democrats to gain a majority. Democrats controlled 59 seats in the Senate, if you include two independents who usually vote with them. The Republicans needed to take 10 seats to gain a majority (bearing in mind that Vice-President Joe Biden could vote to break a 50-50 tie). 2010 Political context Democrats were on the defensive, especially in seats won in conservative territory in the South and Mid-West in 2006 and 2008 (both good Dem years). Since 1938 the party in the White House has lost seats in every Congressional election year save for 1996, 1998, 2002 and 2004. There are 3 theories to explain the tendency of the President’s party to lose seats in midterms:

- surge and decline – incumbents no longer have short-term advantages that applied when they won seats down the ticket from a victorious President.

- negative voting – those dissatisfied with the current Administration are more likely to turn out in midterms than those who are broadly happy

- Balancing – reflects the desire of some voters (as many as 2/3 in a May 2010 survey) who prefer divided government: easier to achieve with a midterm vote as the White House’s occupant is already known.

Which of these seems most plausible in 2010?

In addition, Obama and the Democrats had become unpopular due to: - continuing economic problems - rising unemployment (it had reached 9%, the highest

in 30 years) - the ongoing home price slump and foreclosures - popular awareness of a huge + rising debt burden - taxpayer bailouts of banks and the auto industry - and an overambitious legislative agenda (Obamacare,

Cap and Trade, immigration reforms, etc.).

The economy dominated the election – in exit polls 63% of voters named it as their top issue (no other issue reached 20%) Many Dems attempted to distance themselves from Obama on the campaign trail, especially those who represented conservative areas – e.g. “McCain Democrats” – the 48 House members who represented districts which John McCain had carried in the 2008 Presidential election.

The Republicans and the Tea Party After two successive defeats, and despite talk of a natural Democrat majority in the USA, the GOP was resurgent in 2009-10. Republicans rapidly distanced themselves from George W Bush’s administration and policies, rediscovering a zeal for smaller government and balanced budgets, while retaining a commitment to lower taxes. The party united strongly in Congress, rallying in staunch opposition to every aspect of President Obama’s agenda, and healthcare reform in particular.

In all this they were encouraged by the emergence of the Tea Party, a grass roots protest movement outraged at ballooning debts, deficit budgets and big government projects. Public discontent over healthcare reforms in the summer of 2009, and the surprise victory of Scott Brown in taking Senator Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in the Massachusetts Special Election in January 2010, confirmed to Republicans that the mood of the country was with them. Fears of Tea Party challenges in primary races also incentivised Republicans tempted into bipartisan compromise to stay loyal to the party line, although there was also concern within the leadership that Tea Party pressure might result in the nomination of candidates who were unelectable in November.

Conservative donors and pressure groups were also energized into opening their wallets in support of Republican candidates, cheered on by conservative media outlets and high profile commentators such as Sarah Palin. The emphasis was on a conservative economic agenda, with social conservatism playing less of a role in the campaigns than in recent election cycles.

Primaries

Congressional primary races were more competitive than usual, with coverage dominated by vigorous Tea Party efforts to install candidates sympathetic to their cause and unseat incumbent RINOs they suspected of being too willing to compromise with President Obama’s agenda. Sarah Palin’s regular Facebook postings offered a series of endorsements. Incumbent Republicans also hastened to emphasise their Tea Party conservative credentials to help see off primary challengers and to attract support (financial and otherwise) for their general election campaign. In the end, it was estimated that 129 House candidates and 9 Senate candidates had Tea Party support. The Senate saw 3 incumbents lose in primary challenges (Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Bob Bennett of Utah both lost to Tea Party-backed challengers; Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania lost his Democrat primary, but he had only recently defected from the Republican Party). The House had 4 incumbents (2 Democrat and 2 Republican) who lost in the primaries – the same number as 2008, and in line with most cycles. And at state legislature level the number of incumbents who lost primary races was not out of the ordinary; 53 incumbent Democrats and 44 incumbent Republicans. Overall, this hardly indicates sweeping Tea Party success against established Republican politicians. However, more Republican incumbents faced significant challenges than usual, and many tacked to the right in order to see off rivals.

The Campaign

Democratic strategists tried to run a message of choice: either moving on with the Dem agenda or going back to failed Republican policies associated with Bush. They tried to blame GOP obstruction in Congress for failures to do more to fix the economy, but voters didn’t buy this message. Republicans ran on the bad economy and opposition to the Washington Democrat leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi who was labelled as an elitist liberal responsible for widely unpopular policies. Promises to cut spending and protect low taxes resonated with voters making similar choices in their own household budgets.

The GOP message was summed up by the launch of a “Pledge to America” – a sort of mini-manifesto which listed legislative priorities should the Republicans win the House of Representatives. It demanded the extension of Bush’s tax cuts, cuts in federal spending, repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a permanent ban on federal funding for abortions, medical liability and insurance reform, and a requirement that all legislative bills quote the specific constitutional authority that would allow them. By deliberately echoing the successful 1994 “Contract with America”, GOP leaders hoped to rally their candidates behind a clear national message.

The Media

In 2008 US citizens had more access to political news coverage than ever before, with old media outlets such as newspapers and broadcast television being supplemented by vigorous cable TV and internet outfits. In many ways the lines between these are blurred, as old media such as ABC and the New York Times adapt by investing in a major online presence and encouraging audience engagement through social media techniques. Social media such as Facebook, Twitter, videosharing, etc. were widely used, building on the techniques successfully employed in 2008, especially by the victorious Obama campaign. Overall, a study by the Project in Excellence in Journalism found that coverage of the Midterms grew from 6% of the “newshole” to 42% by the week before polling day.

Most media coverage was negative in tone – up to 70% on nightly news, with blogs and online political sites (e.g. Politico, Huffington Post) often focusing even more heavily on the negative aspects of the campaign. Media coverage also focused heavily on “the horserace” – meaning the process of campaigning, strategies, polling, campaign finance, gaffes, etc. – rather than on the policies or records of the actual candidates.

Some differences can be identified between media types:

- Newspapers offered straightforward reporting of the issues and main campaign developments – but the traditional print media is in steep decline: only 31% of voters relied on newspaper coverage, compared to 60% in 1996

- Television news was more speculative, with extensive use of pundits and some use of social media to elicit audience reactions. This remained the main source of news for 66% of voters.

- Radio continues to have a role in providing elections coverage, with right-wing talk radio especially important to conservative candidates. 17% of voters relied on radio for learning about the midterms.

- Online news sites tended to be more partisan, opinionated and sensational. About 20% of voters used the internet to learn about the election – similar to 2006 and 2008.

- Political sites run by parties, candidates and non-partisan groups (e.g. League of Women Voters) offered lots of information and details on how to participate, e.g. by volunteering, attending campaign events, registering to vote, obtaining an absentee ballot, etc.

- Blog sites were often highly partisan and ideological, offering argument and scrutiny for those willing to engage fully with the elections.

- Social media focused on influencing voters and encouraging participation. But most candidates spent less than 5% of their funds on social media outreach – the bulk of their spending is still overwhelmingly on TV ads.

Some especially conservative candidates attempted to run against the “mainstream media” – following Sarah Palin who often rails against its liberal elitism. In general this was not a winning strategy, as the failures of Sharon Angell (NV), Joe Miller (AK) and Christine O’Donnell (DE) in their Senate races indicates.

However, political interest did not match the enthusiasm with which the media covered midterms – only 30% of respondents reported following Congressional Election news in the week leading up to 2nd November 2010 (compared to 58% in the week prior to the 2008 election). This is in line with previous midterms.

Money

Republican HoR candidates raised $502 million to $465 million for Democrat candidates

Republican Senate candidates raised $356 million to $294 million for Democrat candidates Candidate Totals $858 million to $759 million = $1.64 Bn

Republican National Committee (RNC) raised $170 million to $195 million for Democratic NC

NRSC $93 million to $107 million for DSCC

NRCC $107 million to $129 million for DCCC Party Cttee Totals $370 million to $432 million = $802 M Combined Party & Candidate spending = $2.442 Bn And heavy expenditure by outside groups meant that perhaps another $1.2 bn was spent to influence the midterm elections.

This outside spending aided Republicans substantially, by an estimated 2:1 margin - e.g. $33 M from US Chamber of Commerce, $39 M by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS (although the pro-Democrat AFSCME Union was the biggest single spender, at $91 M). They were aided in this by relaxed campaign finance rules following the US Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. Overall it is estimated that (including the primaries) $4 billion was spent in the 2010 midterms, up from $2.85 bn in 2006 and $2.18 bn in 2002. About 14% of registered voters donated money to campaigns in 2010. But money was not decisive in the outcome: losing House incumbents typically spent $2.2 M, compared to $1.5 M by successful challengers. And notoriously, Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for Governor of California, spent $160 M (including $120 of her own fortune) – and lost! This matches findings from previous Congressional elections – once a candidate has enough money to pass a viability threshold, the race becomes competitive. Successful campaigners not only spent on TV ads; they also commissioned polling, focus groups and other audience research, testing and refining their messages and targeting voters in very sophisticated ways to maximise their use of campaign resources. However, the main forecasting models (e.g. Crystal Ball), using historic trends to predict the 2010 House race, underestimated Republican gains by 10 to 15 seats. This implies that campaigning, and probably the money advantage outside groups provided, did make a difference to the margin of victory.

Results

House

Aggregating 435 House races, the Republicans won 52% of the popular vote, to only 45% for the Democrats - the largest GOP advantage since 1946. (The GOP lead was less in Senate races – 4.5%, and just 1.7% in gubernatorial contests, but these did not take place all over the USA).

Republicans won 63 Democrat-held House districts (the best Republican turnover since 1938), giving the Republicans 242 House seats and a majority of 48 – their largest since 1946.

The GOP won across all US regions, except the West Coast (none of California’s 53 House seats changed hands); its re-emergence in New England with a pick-up of 15 seats was especially notable after a near-death experience in the North East in the previous two contests.

Source: Pendulum Swing, Ed Larry J Sabato, Longman 2011

Evidence suggests that local issues were not a big factor in the House elections, which were dominated to an unusual degree by national issues – a true wave election. This allowed even quite weak GOP candidates to defeat Democrat incumbents, including some long-term House members (7 Democrats who had served 20 years or more) who would normally be considered safe even in a bad year for their party.

Senate

Democrats retained control of the Senate with a majority of 6, but Republicans won 6 Democrat-held Senate seats:

- Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin were the only incumbent Democrats to lose. 10 incumbent Democrats won re-election.

- Elsewhere Republicans captured open seats in Illinois, North Dakota, Indiana and Pennsylvania (all in the northern “frost belt”). Only in Connecticut, Delaware and West Virginia did the Democrats manage to retain a seat where an incumbent had retired.

- and Republicans defended all 18 of their seats, including the 6 open seats where GOP incumbents had retired.

- but major GOP challenges in western states all failed (California, Nevada, Colorado and Washington)

- and Lisa Murkowski won re-election to her Alaska seat, running as a write-in candidate and beating Joe Miller, the Tea Party-backed Republican who had defeated her in the primaries. She will, however, continue to caucus with Senate Republicans.

Source: Pendulum Swing, Ed Larry J Sabato, Longman 2009

High-profile Tea Party candidates in Nevada (Sharron Angle), Delaware (Christine O’Donnell) and Colorado (Ken Buck) all lost in seats that many had considered very vulnerable to Republican challengers. In addition Joe Miller lost in Alaska, although in his case this was to Lisa Murkowski, another Republican. Commentators immediately argued that the role of the Tea Party in nominating these inexperienced and relatively extreme candidates had cost the GOP a chance to gain control of the House.

State races

46 states had legislative races in 2010 and the Republicans achieved a historic win across the United States. GOP candidates gained a record 680 seats and ended up in control of 25 state legislatures, with only 15 still controlled by Democrats (the other 10 states have divided control). In 5 states Republicans won both chambers from the Democrats, in 4 they gained one chamber to control the whole legislature, and in 3 states they gained one chamber to divide control of the legislature. In Governors’ races, 37 states voted, with mixed results. Overall Republicans did well, winning 11 state houses from the Democrats, but they lost 6 governorships themselves (5 to Democrats,

including the mighty California, and 1 to an Independent ex-Republican). Most of these changes took place in open races – only 2 incumbents, both Democrats, lost their re-election bids. After the election, Republicans took control of 29 of the 50 State Governorships.

Analysis

Distancing from Obama didn’t help – indeed, some (liberal) commentators argued that the Democrats would have done better to present a positive picture of what had been achieved in 2009 and 2010, rallying behind President Obama’s agenda, rather than fighting individual campaigns that emphasised their personal independence. In particular, Blue Dog Democrats were very badly damaged, despite their conservative voting record in the House; for example, against Obamacare and Cap and Trade. In a wave election, this didn’t help them – of 54 self-identified Blue Dogs, only 26 survived 2010’s election.

One consequence of this is that the 2011-12 Democrat party in Congress in more homogenous and liberal than it was previously, contributing to the ongoing rise in partisanship Washington is experiencing. The better Democrat performance in the Senate could be explained by the greater exposure of House Democrats in 2010 – they were defending seats won in a Democrat high-water mark election of 2008, whereas Senators were defending seats won in the Republican year of 2004. 26 freshman Democrats captured Republican House seats (mostly in relatively conservative areas in the South and Midwest) in 2008 – all but 5 lost their re-election bids in 2010. Of the 48 “McCain Democrats”, only 12 were re-elected in 2010.

Turnout

Turnout went down to 40% - not atypical for mid-terms but nearly 25% lower than 2008. Partly explained by the fact that although all House seats were being elected, 13 states had no election for governor, 13 were electing no Senator, and 30 House seats were considered so safe the incumbent was unopposed (while other safe districts were only lightly opposed by the other party) – so stakes much lower than in a Presidential year. Was it low Dem turnout compared to 2008 that really mattered? The 2010 electorate was much more conservative, older and whiter than that of 2008 – for example, party identification changed dramatically:

2008 2010 Republican identifiers 32% 35% Democrat identifiers 39% 35%

And detailed analysis reveals that self-identified Independents (29% of the election in each year) were more conservative than those voting in 2008.

Young voters (under 30) dropped from 18% of the electorate in 2008 to 12% in 2010 African-American voters dropped from 13% to 11%, Hispanics from 9% to 8% of the electorate.

Voters 65 and older went from 15% in 2008 to 21% in 2010 White voters increased from 74% in 2008 to 77% in 2010 – and these voted 60% GOP (up from 55% in 2008. But it wasn’t all about differential turnout: As well as the GOP increasing its lead among white voters, it increased its margin over the Democrats with older voters from 8% to 21%. And women shifted dramatically from a 13% Democrat lead in 2008 to a 1% Republican margin in 2010.

Even among minority voting groups the Republicans eroded the Democrats’ lead significantly. So 2010 can correctly be called a change election. It could be seen as the mirror of 2006 – the repudiation of a President and his party by an electorate demanding change. Exit polls revealed voters thought the country was on the wrong track by nearly 2:1 over those believing it was going in the right direction.

Incumbency

2010 was the worst year for House incumbents for over 3 decades: 58 incumbents lost (4 in primaries, 54 in November) – a re-election rate of only 85%. The Senate was different, with only 4 losing incumbents (2 in primaries, 2 in November)

Early Voting

It is now much easier in most states to cast an early ballot (typically by post, although some states allow early voting in person at selected venues). Up to 29% of votes in 2010 may have been cast in the 3 weeks or so before polling day on 2nd November – compared to c30% in 2008, which was itself a big leap from previous cycles. This increase in early voting is reshaping campaigns, as there is now less emphasis on peaking for a single election day, and more of a sustained build-up over several weeks. Particular events, such as debates, scandals, national affairs, and other media storms may thus have less effect on the overall results than before. Redistricting

One important consequence of the big Republican gains at state level is the impact on redistricting following the 2010 Census. In about 40 states the majority party is able to draw district boundaries to favour themselves in future Congressional and state legislature races. The ability of GOP politicians to control this process in many states may well give the party an additional advantage in the next electoral cycle.

Sources and further reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special_reports/us_elections_2010/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04campaign.html?_r=1 http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/index.php Pendulum Swing, Ed Larry J Sabato, Longman 2011 (in Politics Office)