Democrats Lost; Republicans Didn't Win
By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science
Nov 7, 2014 -
On Tuesday night, a partisan wave swept Democrats out of power all across the nation and at every level of government. However in analyzing the election, I think it is more accurate to say that the Democrats lost the election more than Republicans won the election. Realizing this fact would lead both parties to make the correct decisions regarding strategy over the next two years.
First, the Democratic defeat was felt at the federal, state, and local level. The Republicans are headed for a nine seat gain in the Senate, at least a 13 seat gain in the House, a three seat gain among governorships, between 350-375 new state legislators, and control of 10 additional legislative chambers. The Republicans won in red states, blue states, and purple states and exceeded all expectations for their performance. The control of state legislatures and governors are important because gridlock in Washington will make states the policy innovators which means most innovative policy will be Republican. Moreover, the state legislative gains creates a larger farm team of future higher office seekers for Republicans which means they will have more high quality candidates running.
The Republicans did so well because of a simple calculus: favorable national environment + favorable map + good candidates = victory. First, the national environment clearly disfavored the Democrats. The cumulative effect of the botched roll-out of healthcare.gov, “you can keep your plan if you like it,” the VA crisis, border crisis, Secret Service scandal, IRS scandal, poor Ebola response, and a foreign policy in Syria that contributed, in part, to the rise of ISIS and the deterioration of Iraq combined with Russian aggression in seizing Crimea and destabilizing Ukraine convinced most Americans that President Obama and Democrats suffered from poor administration, planning, strategy, and decision making. As a result, President Obama’s overall approval was 44% though it varied by state. In fact, Senate Democrats could barely outperform the president’s approval in their home state as those Democratic Senators with states that approved of Obama by lower numbers usually lost.
Second, the electoral map favored the Republicans for the Senate. Three Senate Democratic incumbents represented red states (AR, AK, LA), two open seats were in red states (MT, SD), 2 Senate Democrats represented GOP leaning states (NC, WV), and 3 represented swing states (IA, CO, NH). This line-up made it difficult for Senators who overwhelmingly supported Obama to distance themselves from the unpopular president in states that were not predisposed to Obama in the first place. However, the electoral map is not the only reason for Republican victories as Republicans won contested governor races in swing states and even picked up three blue state governorships (IL, MA, MD).
Third, the Republicans recruited good candidates who ran good campaigns making it difficult for Democrats to make the campaign about their opponent rather than their record. The GOP had good candidates for several reasons. First, the establishment worked hard to defeat extreme Tea Party candidates that would embarrass the party and cost the party seats in GA, MS, and NC. Second, the favorable environment allowed the GOP to recruit high quality candidates like Congressman Cory Gardner (R-CO) instead of being stuck with someone like Ken Buck who lost the 2010 Senate race. Third, all incumbents who feared a Tea Party challenger were prepared for the race as Mitch McConnell (R-KY) raised money and collected enough information to destroy his opponent, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) used great constituency services and national security issues to beat back his challengers, and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) convinced every strong potential opponent to endorse him leaving the Tea Party with 2nd and 3rd tier challengers. The only incumbent caught napping was Pat Roberts (R-KS) who know one thought would be challenged. Third, the candidates successfully parried Democratic attacks like the war on women by supporting over the counter birth control or nominating a woman (Ernst in IA, Land in MI).
The combination of a negative political environment for Democrats, strong candidates, a good map, and a much improved ground game helped the Republicans mobilize their voters and win the close elections.
So why was this a Democratic loss and not a Republican victory? In political science, we use two models to explain elections. First, the prospective models says that voters weigh the policies and visions of the two candidates and vote for the candidate closest to them on the issues. However, most Republicans ran less on issues and more on an anti-Obama platform making it hard to claim the public endorsed GOP ideas. Second, the retrospective model says that the public judges the incumbent’s performance and rewards or punishes accordingly. Based on the lack of legislative accomplishments, mismanagement of the government, and a foreign policy that diminished the US’s position in the world, the public clearly punished the Democrats. The GOP was able to take advantage of this because Republican favorability, low for so long, was equal to Democratic favorability in the exit polls. Thus for the first time since the Bush years, the public saw Republicans as a legitimate alternative.
In interpreting this election, it also makes sense that we not look at this election in isolation. First, the midterm electorate was older, whiter, and more Republicans than the presidential electorate so Republicans should not read too much into Tuesday’s victory. The GOP still faces long term demographic problems that they need to address. Second, and to quote the great political scientist V.O. Key, the voters are not fools. The public punished Republicans for incompetence in Iraq in 2006 and for Iraq and the economy in 2008. The public then punished Democrats for ideological overreach in 2010 before punishing the Democrats for incompetence in 2014. The public wants effective government that addresses the problems they face and that is the message of the election more than any ideological change in the country. Republicans and Democrats should, therefore, address the public’s priorities with solutions that work. It is OK if ideology guides your point of view but only if your ideology and the policies that originate from it work. How well the two parties and their factions internalize this fact will shape, in part, the politics of the next two years.
Overall, I expect the upcoming 114th Congress to be slightly more productive than the 113th Congress but not by much. Unlike the past two years when Republican legislation passed by the House died in the Senate and Democratic legislation passed by the Senate died in the House, Republican control of Congress should make it easier for the two chambers to agree on a bill and send something to the president. There are areas of potential common ground between Republicans and Obama on Keystone/energy, tax reform, patent reform, criminal sentencing, and trade promotion authority. However, immigration, the budget, environment, and health care will be areas of conflict.
Moreover, the 60 vote requirement to end a filibuster means the Senate will not get much more done than usual. The new Republican Senators make the Senate Republican Conference more conservative while the loss of Senate Democratic moderates on Tuesday makes the Senate Democratic caucus more liberal. This combination makes productivity unlikely as a liberal minority is unlikely to work with a more conservative majority. Plus, Senate Democrats are likely to repay Republican obstruction over the past six years with obstruction the next 2 years.
However, both parties must make decisions about whether to govern or provide the public a choice. The establishment wants to govern while the Tea Party wing wants to confront Obama with conservative policies and make him veto them. The GOP actually needs to do both as governing helps the GOP gain the trust of the public while a wide range of policies that address real needs creates and fills out a vision that the public can, potentially, embrace. The fact that the electoral Senate map favors Democrats in 2016 incentivizes Republicans to pass some bills. The GOP must defend 24 seats in 2016 and 10 of those seats are vulnerable while only 2 Democratic seats are. Those members in blue states (IL, PA, WI) and swing states (FL, IA, NC, NH, OH) need accomplishments to win reelection. They key is whether Tea Party Republicans are willing to compromise with their Republican colleagues to gain unity on a vision. A failure to do so provides no vision, few accomplishments, a divided party, and a possible return to minority status.
The Democrats must also decide whether they want to govern or offer a choice. Democrats want to force Republicans in difficult races in 2016 to take difficult votes to divide the GOP and make Republicans support policies contrary to their constituent’s wishes. The Democrats hope that an unproductive Republican Congress will be blamed for gridlock and will sweep them back into power. However, this strategy is problematic because the public usually expects the president to make the system work and may blame the president’s party for inaction which hurts their chances in 2016.
The next two years is also a test of presidential leadership. Typically after a defeat like this, presidents change their policy, style, or staff. We saw Reagan hire a new White House staff and work with Congressional Democrats after the 1986 election, Clinton change policy and staff after the 1994 debacle, Bush change staff, execute the surge in Iraq, and make some accommodation with Democrats after 2006. However after President Obama’s press conference on Wednesday, he shows no indication of changing policy, style, or staff. Obama may believe that he is trading one form of divided government (Republican House/Democratic Senate) for another (Republican House and Senate) but the result is the same: his legislative agenda will go nowhere. Consequently, he is focused on his legacy and that will only be burnished through executive action. Obama believes that executive action on immigration will cement the emerging Democratic majority or coalition of the ascendant of minorities, women, the young, and professionals by cementing Latinos to the Democrats. Moreover, action on climate change with create a green energy industry and if the green energy movement grows, as is likely, an emerging industry and its employees will be reliable Democratic voters while helping Democrats own the important quality of life issues of education, health care, and the environment. If he truly believes that he is on the right side of history on these issues, he has every incentive to pursue them. This strategy will mobilize his base, infuriate Republicans and cause them to overreact, and probably frustrate those in the middle.