The message from Election 2010 seems to be "it's still the economy, stupid." Even with the DOW over 11,000 and the threat of a great depression averted, everyone knows that the economy is in trouble and jobs are hard to find. In the exit polls, 9 of 10 cited the economy as the top issue. The argument that the unemployment rate would have been even worse without the Recovery Act never gained any traction. Democrats played defense and never went on the offense with a message about the largest tax cut in history, the end of health insurers being able to dump you when you get sick, targeted tax cuts to small business, etc.
Locally, I thought Trey Casimir had the best summation in today's Daily Item:
“If Chris Carney, who is pro-gun, anti-abortion, a military man, has a positive rating from the NRA, if he can’t get elected around here, nobody with a ‘D’ after their name can get elected around here,” Casimir said.
I would add that Carney did not run a great campaign this time, but the polling averages (see FiveThirtyEight.com) suggested a 6 point Marino win, and it was about a 10 point Marino win. Even if he had run a pitch perfect campaign, he might well have fallen short this time. It was appropriate to raise questions about Marino's past conduct, but the voters wanted to see a focus on the economy and the future, especially in the last couple weeks of the campaign. That never happened, and the charge that Marino was somehow unfit to serve did not sway the voters.
In the "I was wrong" category, it turned out that Joe Sestak made his race with Pat Toomey very close (did those ads showing Toomey with the Chinese flag actually work?), whereas Russ Feingold lost badly to millionaire and political neophyte Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. No one seems to have a good explanation why Feingold slipped so badly after three terms. My only theory was that he did not have the "likeability" factor that can sometimes be the difference. He always seemed a little bit too sure that he was right. Of course, he was also badly outspent and was targeted with unrelenting negative ads. He was favored for reelection until the negative ads drove down his poll numbers.
One other comment: It's going to be difficult to get anything done about a severance tax on natural gas extraction since governor-elect Corbett has dug in against it. But that will be a topic for another day. I read this week that wind turbine companies are laying off people and shutting down production: low natural gas prices have made clean energy too expensive in relative terms. Why am I pretty sure that we are not pricing the real costs of natural gas into the product?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I just looked at the final numbers in Wisconsin. Russ Feingold lost by 51.9 to 47.1, so he was actually closer than the projected margin. Early returns had Feingold down by 15 point. Still, that's not as close as Toomey/Sestak turned out to be (but remember, there are 1 million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania).
Democrats as a whole nation-wide underperformed against the political science metrics (which claim about 45 House seat losses are simply due to the fundamentals, e.g. economy, current House levels, etc.). They're about 15+ seats worse than that, which is a historic underperformance.
I don't know what's up with that. Maybe the health care bill (as it is perceived) played a role.
Still, I think the Dems would have been better served ignoring the deficit scolds and passing a larger stimulus. That coupled with a realistic mortgage relief program could have
1. made the world a better place, always worth something, and
2. probably (at least possibly) improved their electoral prospects by improving the fundamentals.
Maybe that would have led to them further underperforming the fundamentals, but actually losing fewer seats because of the improved economy. Or even if they break even or lose ground a bit, there's always point number 1 above.
Another explanation for 15 extra Republican gains is that they were able to concentrate their "extra" votes in key districts. In the House voting they were 6 or 7 points up, but their gains were greater than that gap would predict (as Ben notes). I'm not sure why this played out as it did.
As for passing a larger stimulus, recall that Arlen Specter was the key figure. Unless something is done about the filibuster, we're going to go right back into the same problems with people like Lieberman and Nelson having undue influence.
Post a Comment