We've had two special congressional elections in the last two weeks, neither of which tell us that much about things we want to know.
California-36 doesn't give a big clue to the political environment because the 56.1%D-41.4%R is about what we'd expect in this district. We did learn that Republicans will vote for a Republican candidate in California's new top two primary system, even in a district they are perceived to not have much a chance. One theory is that Republicans would vote for the more centerist Democrat, giving them the better choice in the final result.
It's not surprising that they didn't. People don't come to the polls with clever strategies. They vote for who they like, even if other people think they have no shot. This is very evident in that so many candidates received votes.
The authors of Prop 14 envisioned moderates making the final vote. In the final vote the moderates would vote for the moderate, regardless of party, and the party who didn't have a more party line candidate would also. The winners, Hahn and Huey, are seen as a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican. This insight may prove to be true, but we won't find out now.
The right leaning Libertarian Party got 1.4%, the left leaning Peace and Freedom Party got 0.5%, and independents got 0.6%. These totals are insignificant and well within the percentage that could shift from a primary to a general election. California has produced a number of elections where the right leaning or left leaning party got 4% or more of the vote. A much higher total will tell us what the third party voters will do.
If the final vote varies much from an expected 57.5%D-42.5%R it won't tell us a lot other than one candidate ran a stronger campaign.
NY-26 produced an upset victory for the Democrats. It was, however, only a few percentage points above what I'd expect a Democrat to get. While the "Tea Party" candidate certainly didn't siphon all his votes from the Republican, the Republican could've won without him. Corwin was unpopular and ran the weaker campaign.
One conclusion people are drawing is that it's not 2010 any more and the Democrats aren't still unpopular. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone familiar with elections. A party is punished when they are in the majority. The people did that last November. Democrats are no longer in the majority and voters no longer are voting with anger. Anyone thinking that America turned sharply to the right was kidding themselves.
These elections don't mean the Republicans will be punished in 2012 and they'll lose the House. There remains only about a 20% chance they'll lose the House. Republicans control only the House and voters can't put all the blame for whatever anger they have on them. The President attracts most of the anger when there is some and the President isn't Republican.
When a President runs for re-election it rarely produces a significant congressional change, even when the House is in the hands of the opposing party. The MSM story is that 1996 was a rebuke of the Republicans due to Clinton's win. Yet the GOP only went from 237 House seats before the election to 228 after it. That was most likely a regression to the mean. Republicans averaged a 228-207 edge during this period and they got that.
Likewise neither 1984 or 1972, Republican Presidential landslides, produced much movement in the House. In both cases Republicans rose a little above the mean, as the President had short coat tails. Republicans should lose 10-15 seats in 2012 to regress toward the mean. In such a case a 25, now 24, seat loss would be unexpected but not that unlikely. Thus, my 20% figure.
Redistricting may put the mean higher, however, meaning that instead of a possible 215 Republicans with a mean of 228 there might be 228 Republicans with a mean of 240. And that's if Obama wins. Of course, a Republican winning the Presidency would likely push Republican totals higher.
There were several special elections in 2008 that confirmed what we'd already learned from 2006 and George Bush was even more unpopular. Neither total is more than a few points from what you'd expect, not the major swing in those elections. Democrats lost two special congressional elections in 2009 and still got clobbered in 2010. So setbacks in New York don't have much meaning.
The Democrats know their voters are no longer asleep, but again that was expected either.
No comments:
Post a Comment