Transcript Mid-term Elections 2010

The2010 Mid-terms and the
Future of the Obama Presidency
Which political bodies were involved?
At the Federal level:
Both Houses of Congress
At the State level:
-State legislatures
-Governors
-Many other statewide posts
At the Local level:
-Some mayors of large cities
-Many other locally elected positions: county judges, sheriffs,
etc.
Both the House and the Senate have high incumbency rates. In 2010,
the number of Senate retirees was high: 5 Democrats were retiring as
compared to 6 Republicans
Results
Senate :
Democrats 53* (-7)
Republicans 47 (+7)
House :
Democrats 186 (-62)
Republicans 240 (+62)
Governor: Democrats 18 (-8)
Republicans 29 (+7)
*includes two independents (Joe Lieberman (Conn) and Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
who vote with the Democrats
2010 Results: the Senate – geographical distribution
Note the solid Democratic representation in the West
and the strong Republican representation in the Mid-west
and South
House: Geographical distribution
Note the similar pattern to the Senate, but the considerable inroads
made by the Republicans in the Mid-west, Atlantic states and the
industrial North East. This largely restores the Republicans to their pre2006 position
Governors
(Republicans 29; Democrats 19)
Who voted for Whom?
-Almost a clean sweep towards the Republicans, especially
among independents, women, older people and among all
age groups (particularly notable)
but note:
African Americans – solidly Democratic
Latinos and Asians – still largely Democratic
Young – only a small shift to Democrats among 18-29 year
olds
all these groups may be significant in 2012
Table 1: Distribution of Vote by Social Group, 2006
and 2010
Table 2: Voting and Issues, 2010
Table 3: Voting and Attitudes to Obama, 2010
Table 4: The Economy and Voting 2006, 2010
Table 5: Attitudes towards the Te Party, 2010
Voting and Issues
It’s the Economy Stupid!
Chart 1 shows how Democrats and Republicans fared in relation to
their support for the Obama legislative agenda (health care reform, cap
and trade and the economic stimulus). Note the number of members
who lost who voted for all these measures.
Historical Context
Incumbent party losses at mid term to be expected –
only three times since Civil War has President’s party
NOT lost at mid term
Even so, by some measures the greatest mid term loss
since 1938, yet not as earth shattering as 1994 when
the incumbent Democrats lost both houses which was
uexpected
- though the figures are almost identical
Tempting therefore to compare what
happened to Clinton after 1994 to what might
happen to Obama in 2012
Table 6: Mid term Losses of President’s
Party Selected Elections 1930-2010
*includes Independents
Year
President
President’s
party
Net gain/loss
presidents
party
House seats
Senate seats
2010
Obama
D
D-62*
D-7
2006
Bush
R
R-30
R-6
1994
Clinton
D
D-54
D-8*
1982
Reagan
R
R-26
0
1974
Ford
R
R-48
R-4
1966
Johnson
D
D-48
D-3
1958
Eisenhower
R
R-48
R-12
1946
Truman
D
D-54*
D-12*
1942
Roosevelt
D
D-45
D-8
1938
Roosevelt
D
D-72
D-7
1930
Hoover
R
R-52
R-8
Prospects for 2012: In Obama’s
favour
Republicans are on ascendant but are
seriously split – Tea Party v moderates. Would
have won more Senate seats but for Tea party
candidates – Sharron Angle (Nevada), Christine O’Donnell
(Delaware) who both lost
Democrats have Demography, race/ethnicity
advantage – turnout will probably be 20
points higher in 2012 than 2010 and young and ethnic
minorities will be overrepresented
• Republicans have no front runner candidate
Palin almost certainly not electable, all the others have some
disadvantage. Last one term presidents
(Carter, Bush 41) had Reagan & Clinton in the
wings. There is no equivalent candidate today
But, Obama faces…..
Economy is the key – so far prospects don’t look good In December 2010
unemployment remained at9.8% with little sign of rapid improvement
especially in comparison with 1938, 1982, 1994 when mid term defeats
were followed by rapid recoveries. Also, the public mood is fiercely antiincumbent
Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton. Clinton was a natural communicator
and brilliant campaigner. To many Americans Obama appears aloof and
detached. Clinton’s victory in 1996 after being thrashed at he mid-terms
may not be repeated by Obama in 2012.
Republican Speaker Boehner is relatively moderate – very different from
Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey whose antics
may have helped Clinton in 1996. In that year the House Republicans
were combative and came over as extreme offering a new ‘Contract with
America.’. In 2011 and 12 the House Republicans are more likely to
obstruct Obama’s programme rather than offer their own.
Conclusions: OTB? (One
Term Obama)
Recent research suggests that election outcomes a shifting mix of Party identification, and voters’
perceptions of issues and political leaders. 2010 results confirm this.
As Table 7 and Chart 3 show there has been a shift to the Republicans and especially among
independent voters who flocked to him in 2008. Much therefore depends on his ability to woo this
group.
Obama is in serious trouble with respect to both issues and leadership quesion. His only hope is for
one or or a combination of three developments – A foreign policy rally event 9/11 style (God forbid);
A dramatic economic turnaround within 18 months (highly unlikely); a truly hopeless Republican
candidate (unlikely, but with the primaries and internet campaigning it’s possible).
Republicans now control 3/5ths of state legislatures – most since 1928. Via gerrymandering in 2011
census gives them a substantial edge in Congress – even if Obama wins a second term
Americans are confused and angry. There is no clear consensus about future policies. Things can
change very fast – look at 2008-2010, but they are unlikely to change in the president’s favour
Chart 3 Party ID, 2004-2010
Table 7: Party Identification,
2009-2010