What Really Matters in Midterm Elections?

Hint: It’s not gaffes.

National Journal
Emma Roller
July 14, 2014, 1 a.m.

It’s a well-worn piece of con­ven­tion­al wis­dom: The eco­nomy is the dom­in­ant factor in pres­id­en­tial elec­tions. But what about in midterm years?

It’s easy to get caught up in the gaffe-of-the-day cov­er­age that con­gres­sion­al cam­paigns at­tract, but if you want to have a good handle on the state of the midterm elec­tions, it’s more use­ful to think about the fun­da­ment­als. As Ezra Klein wrote in 2010, “We think of cam­paigns in terms of people, but they’re of­ten de­cided by cir­cum­stances.”

For midterms, the eco­nomy may not mat­ter as much as you’d think. But while the state of the eco­nomy may not be the de­cid­ing factor in midterms, as it of­ten is dur­ing pres­id­en­tial elec­tions, it’s of­ten the is­sue at the fore­front of voters’ minds.

His­tor­ic­ally, un­em­ploy­ment hasn’t had much of an im­pact on pres­id­en­tial-party losses in the midterms; but it re­mains the most sens­it­ive is­sue to many voters.A Feb­ru­ary Gal­lup Poll found that un­em­ploy­ment is the most im­port­ant is­sue to voters this cycle, fol­lowed closely by the gen­er­al state of the eco­nomy.

Not all eco­nom­ic in­dic­at­ors, however, are cre­ated equal. John Sides, a polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity, has found that the big­ger the in­crease in dis­pos­able in­come from the year be­fore, the more likely voters are to vote for the in­cum­bent party.”In con­gres­sion­al elec­tions, just as in pres­id­en­tial elec­tions, the pres­id­ent and his party are not pun­ished for run­ning up the debt. They are pun­ished for a weak eco­nomy,” Sides wrote four years ago.

So, how have these eco­nom­ic factors in­flu­enced past midterm elec­tions? The ob­vi­ous ex­ample is 2010, when the af­ter­shocks of the 2008 re­ces­sion helped lead to a surge of tea-party can­did­ates, and led Re­pub­lic­ans to gain con­trol of the House, which they still en­joy. Look­ing at gen­er­ic vote bal­lots for this year, Demo­crats could gain ground in the House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives, but likely not enough to make up their 17-seat de­fi­cit. Oth­er eco­nom­ists pre­dict a small swing for House Re­pub­lic­ans in 2014 — though noth­ing ap­proach­ing the tid­al wave of 2010.

Alan Ab­ramow­itz, a polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist at Emory Uni­versity, says even a stel­lar eco­nomy does not trans­late in­to an auto­mat­ic midterm win for the pres­id­ent’s party — there are al­ways in­ter­ven­ing factors. “It’s not all about the eco­nomy,” Ab­ramow­itz told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “The one thing is, if you have a re­ces­sion, the pres­id­ent’s party is in­ev­it­ably go­ing to do badly … really bad eco­nom­ic con­di­tions are al­most al­ways go­ing to hurt the pres­id­ent’s party.”

In­ter­ven­ing factors — like a hugely un­pop­u­lar war — can hurt parties as much or more than the state of the eco­nomy. In 1966, for ex­ample, Demo­crats lost mem­bers in Con­gress be­cause they had many seats to de­fend and an un­pop­u­lar pres­id­ent’s war (LBJ, Vi­et­nam) to deal with. Sim­il­arly, in 1986 (and 2006, for that mat­ter) it wasn’t the eco­nomy that hurt Re­pub­lic­ans, so much as Pres­id­ent Bush’s fall­ing ap­prov­al rat­ing due to an un­pop­u­lar war in the Middle East.

Go­ing by the sys­tem­ic factors that in­flu­ence midterms year in and year out, Re­pub­lic­ans seems to have the ad­vant­age this year. Re­pub­lic­ans are his­tor­ic­ally more likely to turn out dur­ing midterm years, though that ef­fect was sup­pressed in years where an un­pop­u­lar Re­pub­lic­an was in the White House.

Thomas Mann, a seni­or fel­low at the Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion, says that while jobs have grown im­press­ively, wages have not. “Whatever hap­pens na­tion­ally — which is re­flec­ted in pres­id­en­tial job ap­prov­al and gen­er­al meas­ures of eco­nom­ic growth and health — is go­ing to play un­evenly across these vari­ous dis­tricts and states,” he told Na­tion­al Journ­al.

Still, most voters have likely already made up their minds about the gen­er­al state of the eco­nomy. “It’s late enough now — Ju­ly — to know that it would be hard to really im­prove the sub­ject­ive feel­ings of voters about how the eco­nomy is do­ing,” Mann said.

An­oth­er prob­lem for Demo­crats is that the more seats a party has to de­fend, the more likely it is to lose. This year, Demo­crats have to de­fend 21 seats in the Sen­ate, sev­en of which are in states that voted for Mitt Rom­ney in 2012. Re­pub­lic­ans need to flip just six seats to re­gain con­trol of the Sen­ate. And thanks to in­creas­ing po­lar­iz­a­tion, it’s harder than ever to win a dis­trict where your party is in the minor­ity.

It’s dif­fi­cult to pre­dict each seat be­cause eco­nom­ic con­di­tions fluc­tu­ate from dis­trict to dis­trict, but des­pite the gen­er­al state of the eco­nomy — re­cov­er­ing, but slowly — voters gen­er­ally feel as pess­im­ist­ic about it today as they did in Janu­ary. And, per­haps more than any ob­ject­ive eco­nom­ic in­dices, those sub­ject­ive feel­ings give cre­dence to the idea that the Re­pub­lic­ans will re­tain con­trol of the House and gain con­trol of the Sen­ate come next Janu­ary.

In midterm years, the pres­id­ent’s party al­most al­ways loses seats in Con­gress. More con­found­ing to Demo­crats is the fact that some of their core con­stitu­ents — young voters, minor­ity voters, and single wo­men — are less likely to turn out dur­ing midterm elec­tions.

Voter pess­im­ism about the eco­nomy, com­bined with Obama’s low ap­prov­al, spell bad news for Demo­crats come Novem­ber. However, those factors may turn in­to a sil­ver lin­ing for Demo­crats in 2016. Two Har­vard re­search­ers re­cently found that, his­tor­ic­ally, it takes about eight years for postre­ces­sion eco­nom­ies to reach the pre­crisis level of in­come. So while Demo­crats may lose out this fall, voters may be back to en­joy­ing their prere­ces­sion in­comes in time for the next pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. And wheth­er in­di­vidu­al cam­paigns or more sys­tem­ic factors are to thank, Demo­crats will be poised to reap the re­ward.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5074) }}

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×