September 17: Midterm Implications of Big Recall Win Are Mixed
Pouring over the details of the gubernatorial recall election in California, some significant patterns emerged, as I noted at New York:
The overwhelming defeat of the effort to recall California governor Gavin Newsom was a big victory for a Democratic Party that has had its troubles lately. With the margin of victory for the “no on recall” campaign roughly doubling the already-robust advantage shown in pre-election polls, the earlier scare that the recall threw into the ranks of the Golden State’s dominant party dissipated entirely. With about three-fourths of the expected vote now counted, “no” leads “yes” by a 63.8 to 36.2 margin (which could get even larger if the usual pattern of last-cast mail ballots leaning Democratic manifests itself once again).
The “no” vote was remarkably close to Joe Biden’s performance in California in 2020 (he won 63.5 percent). Given the extreme partisan polarization that underlay the recall vote (exit polls showed 89 percent of self-identified Republicans voting “yes” and 94 percent of self-identified Democrats voting “no”), that means the partisan patterns of the presidential race were reduplicated to a remarkable extent in a non-presidential special election, where Democrats often experience a “falloff,” particularly when they control the White House (and in this case, the governorship). That’s great news for California Democrats, and not a bad sign for Democrats nationally, who are bracing for the midterm losses the “White House Party” typically suffers.
But in assessing the implications of the results, it’s important to look back at what happened down ballot in California in 2020, while looking ahead to the most critical 2022 battleground, the fight for control of the House. Of the 13 net House seats Republicans gained in 2020,
four were in deep-blue California. There is no likely path for Democrats to hang onto House control in 2022 without flipping some or all of those lost seats in one of their strongest states.
Precisely because of the reduplication of the 2020 patterns, there’s really nothing about the recall returns that suggests Democrats are sure to claw back some House seats in California. Two of the four seats Republicans flipped in 2020 (with Asian-American women Young Kim and Michelle Steele as candidates) were centered in Orange County. While “no” won in Orange, the recall race there was closer than the Biden-Trump contest of 2020. A third battleground seat was the one Republican David Valadao won in a very competitive section of the San Joaquin Valley. The recall improved on Trump’s 2020 performance in every county in his district (e.g., Trump won 55 percent in Kings County, but “yes” on recalling Newsom won 63 percent). These results could reflect an intensifying alienation of this heavily agricultural area from Sacramento’s environmental and water-supply policies. Or it could reflect a drop-off in Latino turnout that could spell disaster for Democrats in close 2022 races. Either way the recall numbers should give pause to Democratic optimism about midterm House races.
One study of 2020 returns in California showed Latino turnout trailing non-Latino turnout by about 10 percent. One mail-ballot tracker for the recall showed the turnout gap between Latinos and non-Latino white voters swelling to 20 percent. Youth turnout for the recall was also terrible, exit polls suggest. Yes, these are constituencies that are difficult to mobilize in special elections. But that’s also true of midterm elections, which is a problem Democrats in California and elsewhere need to solve.
The bottom line is that Newsom won the Democratic and Democratic-leaning elements of the California electorate by strongly encouraging partisan polarization via his lavishly funded campaign. This was the obvious smart strategy in this heavily Democratic state. It’s less clear the same strategy will work wonders downballot for Democrats in 2022, which they probably will not have a big financial advantage and shifts in public opinion away from the presidential winner may have settled in, as they did for the last three presidents. Even if Democrats hang onto their monopoly of statewide offices and their super-majorities in the state legislature, any failure to make progress in House races could contribute to the much-dreaded moment when Californian Nancy Pelosi hands over her gavel to Californian Kevin McCarthy, and the Democratic trifecta that gives Biden a chance to implement his agenda comes to an end.
Kerry should spend no time addressing Ralph Nader. Bush/Cheney should be the sole targets for our nominee.
Nationally, that is the job of Howard Dean, who managed to draw in progressive and liberal minded people to his campaign by reminding them that the Democratic party is the party of economic and social progress.
Locally, that is the job of progressive and liberal minded people who mistakenly backed Nader in 2000 and no understand that their mistake brought an extremist to office whose agenda was counter to every one of their values that they wished to express with their ill-conceived vote. Remind them that Ralph Nader’s candidacy gave us a president who has already rescinded and/or undermined the majority of environmental, consumer, and labor safeguards that make Nader’s committments in those areas pale in comparison. Also, remind them that Nader did not seek a third party like everyone assumed, but rather played electoral politics by focusing on only the nine swing states and that Pat Buchannan to his credit ran a national campaign.
Unrelated to the question is this: If someone is still unwavering in their support for Nader, implore them to responsibly vote by finding someone in a solid red state who wants to vote for Kerry and have that person vote for Nader on the basis that there will be a vote in a swing state cast for Kerry.
My friend is unwavering in his support for Nader and he and I have since made a deal. I will cast my vote in Idaho for Nader, whie he will cast his vote in Ohio for Kerry.
Events are out of our hands.
A missed warning and a terror bombing stateside, a serious stock market tumble, another round of massive layoffs, Iraq in flames — any of those things could get rid of Bush. Not much else.
I don’t think there’s much Kerry can do either way. His job right now is not to sell a new program. Just don’t fuck up too bad and be there when the dust settles.
If events don’t cause a Bush implosion, he will be re-elected. I think it’s that simple.
You all seem much more optimistic than me. I am very concerned that they are so close in the polls. What more could Bush do to lose public support? Given his wars, his attacks on the constitution and the nevironment, his appointments of radical judges, his cover-ups of 911 toxic contamination and intelligence failures…and Kerry is only 5 points ahead? Plus I am afraid that the more people learn about Kerry, the less they like him, so I fail to see how he will gain in the polls. I’m sorry to be negative, but I really want to win in November and I am trying to be a realist. I really hope Kerry will pick Edwards as a VP, because I think Edwards can provide the inspiring, exciting, and positive energy that this campaign desperately needs. I think he coulde get us a few points in every state, because he has a very diverse appeal. I hope our Democratic leaders are thinking about this, because there is just so much at stake!
Kerry doesn’t need to be tough on Bush. Kerry needs to show he’ll be tougher on terrorism than Bush.
Because of his record, Bush is in self-destruct mode. Remember it’s about competence.
Or, stated another way, it’s about incompetence, stupid – Bush’s stupid incompetence.
Kerry only needs to show he won’t be distracted by his own ideology.
Kerry should be defining himself right now. Tough on Bush, sure – but only to keep Bush on the defensive (where the Bush guys seem to flounder).
Kerry first needs to define himself, then when normal people start paying attention get tougher on Bush. Make calls for Bush to investigate the failures of his administration and accuse him of stonewalling when he does nothing.
I think Kerry needs to be tougher on Bush, too, and I think increased toucghness will help pull people away from Nader. If the Nader people see and hear Kerry saying the things about Bush which need to be said, they will be more enthusiastic about voting for him. I am disappointed right now in Kerry’s ads. The ones I’ve seen are too wishywashy and in the stye of Dukakis and Mondale. he needs to be slapping that 500 billion dollar deficet up against everybody’s eyeballs.
While polls are interesting to look at from time to time, maybe there is something else to talk about for the next five or so months until polls actually start to mean something. And let’s not forgot, a national poll means little, especially in a close race. As we all know, Gore won nationally last time and it didn’t mean anything.
I am still puzzled by the size of the Nader support. If it is centered in California, Mass., Vt. and other safe Blue states, it might not make a difference. But if Nader is picking up support again in Fla. or Ohio, Kerry, and America, will have a big problem on Nov.2.
I think its time that Kerry not only gets tough on Bush, he should also start peeling the bark off of Nader. This is no longer funny.
Not only does it show that Bush’s drop is not just a temporary dip, but it shows that the first $15-20 million that Bush spent on ads in all those swing states has amounted to something around nil.
Let’s hope that the rest of Bush’s ads over the course of the next eight months are just as effective.
reignman, are Hispanics *that* loath to vote for Kerry?
How awful for Democrats. I guess that gay-bashing and abortion-bashing keeps Hispanics with the GOP.
The problem for Kerry is that any comment he makes will be distorted by the media. So even if he makes a fantastic foreign policy or national security speech, the media will say that he was wearing mismatched socks, or that his suit is tailored.
The media doesn’t want Bush to lose. And unless that changes, he won’t lose.
One other thing:
in the 1980 election, 40% of those who voted for Reagan didn’t believe in the things he was saying, they just wanted Carter out of office.
another example: I was watching MSNBC, and they were talking about Bush’s declining popularity w/ hispanics, so the narrator of the piece surmised: who else are they going to vote for?
obviously, Kerry has to say was he is FOR as opposed to what he is AGAINST, or he will suffer from Perot syndrome.
yep.
This must be Bush’s lowest approval rating in a Zogby poll sunce taking office..