With six weeks to go until Election Day, the midterms aren’t unfolding as we all expected earlier this year, when Republicans were better than even money to retake the Senate and a lead-pipe cinch to flip the House by a substantial margin. There are, of course, plenty of reasons you can cite for this change in the political climate, from the backlash to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision to somewhat better economic news to Donald Trump’s continued presence on the campaign trail to bad GOP-candidate selection. It’s nerve-racking, of course, because with Democrats holding the slightest of majorities in both congressional chambers, very small micro-trends in just a few states or districts could have enormous consequences for the parties and for the country (the consequences extend, of course, to state-level positions, not just governors but election-supervising secretaries of State).
But as political observers anxiously parse polls and hold up weather vanes to test partisan winds, Cook Political Report’s Amy Walter offers another way of looking at this election cycle:
“In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post, political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck write that American politics has become more polarized and calcified. Events and the responses to them from politicians no longer have the ability to deeply and fundamentally reshape our politics or political coalitions. ‘Voters and leaders in the two major parties are not only more ideologically distant from each other but also more likely to describe each other in harsh terms,’ they write. ‘In the fall of 2020, 90 percent of Americans said there were important differences in what the parties stood for — the highest number recorded in almost 70 years of American National Election Study surveys.’
“Moreover, they write, voters are ‘less likely to change their basic political evaluations or vote for the other party’s candidate.’ This calcification of our partisanship ‘produces rigidity in our politics — even when dramatic events suggest the potential for big changes.’
“In other words, if every election is an existential fight, then every election will be close. Or, as the Democratic strategist told me, ‘notably competitive.’”
If true, this would mean not only fewer “persuadable” swing voters to produce big shifts in the results from election to election, but likely a reduction in the sorts of “enthusiasm gaps” thought to affect partisan turnout patterns in the past. Elections would be more like a series of huge pre-mobilized armies meeting in a series of huge clashes with no prisoners taken (and little cooperation across party lines between elections). Even if that’s an exaggeration of the degree of gridlock from which our government and our electorate is suffering, we might truly be entering a period in which swings in party voting are limited. And as Sides, Tausanovitch, and Vavreck note, the “calcification” of party and ideological divisions can become self-perpetuating:
“Calcified politics and partisan parity combine to produce a self-reinforcing cycle. When control of government is always within reach, there is less need for the losing party to adapt and recalibrate. And if it stays on the same path, voters have little reason to revise their political loyalties.”
To be clear, very close elections can have variable outcomes. And in our winner-take-all system, the stakes will remain high. It will obviously make a great deal of difference which party wins the White House in 2024. Control of the Senate, moreover, depends as much on near-accidents of landscape than on the overall voting strength of the two parties, since only one-third of senators face voters each cycle. Democrats are benefiting from a modestly positive Senate landscape this year. Republicans should have a big Senate advantage in 2024. There is no guarantee either party can muster a governing “trifecta” in the future. As Republicans learned in 2017–18 and Democrats have learned in 2021–22, a trifecta isn’t all that if you can’t rigidly discipline all your troops all the time.
When white-knuckle time arrives just before Election Day this year, the odds are pretty good there will remain a lot of uncertainty about exactly what will happen when the votes are all counted (assuming we can get bipartisan buy-in on the results as officially certified, which is hardly a safe assumption at present). If Democrats managed to hold onto both congressional chambers, they may well feel vindicated by voters and go on to undertake an ambitious agenda in the next two years. More likely we will have a return to divided government and even more uncertainty and gridlock as we enter still another momentous election cycle.
Yes, mobilization is KEY and it’s not too late for anyone to get involved. Here are easy ways to do SOMETHING, complete with links to get you started NOW. Please pass on to your friends, especially those in swing states, or who know people in swing states.
http://www.helpkerrywin.com/
Hey, how about the Libertarian factor? You gotta think that there are some Repubs that will vote Libertarian this year b/c they can’t stomach voting for a ‘liberal’ but they hate the Justice Department’s promotion of the Patriot Act.
In regards, to Nader, I’d be surprised if he gets half of what he got last time (approx. 2.7% of the vote). Look, the only people that will vote for Nader are the anarchist, hemp-advocate types that don’t vote Dem anyway. Even Chomsky is recommending that people vote Dem in swing states.
Nader is not a factor for the remaining UNDECIDEDS.
He will have minimal impact on the states in which he remains on the ballot, but I do not believe his total will have relevance this election.
Kerry is going to win big, so it won’t matter.
As *possible* evidence of my previous point about Fla, see today’s WP… there’s a story about how Dems are turning up in larger proportions than Repubs in early FLA voting so far… i.e., a county has 35% registered Dems, but Dems make up 40% of all early voters there…of course, that might not statistically mean anything…But at the least, it reflects energy, I would think…
eric…
…in the end, I really think Kerry will win Florida… Recall they projected that the minimum wage initiative would churn out a 5% turnout increase — people on the low end who come out to vote themselves a pay increase are going to be overwhelmingly Democrat…
Also, Nevada has a similar referendum on the ballot…My guess is that the Kerry people see some internal polling out there predicting a similar surge (like the one possible in Fla)… Having Kerry speak there last night to energize canvassers may push him over the edge…
Any comments?
Thanks!
eric…
The best thing the Democrats could ever do (in preparation of the 2008 election of course) would be to embrace Nader and follow his lead for reform. His specific analysis is invaluable and will provide the Democratic party with a road map for winning the 18-35 progressive block of young voters. This is the age group that will be most politically savvy, most informed (due to growing up with the Internet), and most difficult to attract to the Democratic circle with “Business As Usual”. The tactics of Clinton and the “run to the middle” methods will not work in 2008. Reform is on the horizon.
For some time, the site has taken note of the fact that Democrats have historically been better at GOTV efforts than Republicans, noting this as a reason to discount LV polls that show a seemingly disproportionate Bush lead.
That wasn’t the case in the 2002 midterms, however. Karl Rove took the lesson from Gore’s 2000 effort, and spent a lot of time and money on his “72 Hour Project,” which many credit with the R’s surprisingly sound victories.
This year’s efforts make ’02 look like chump change – the R’s have spent unprecedented millions in organizing their ground game, including both their standard voter suppression/intimidation efforts and the D’s standard phone banks and other GOTV efforts.
I’d be interested in hearing some thoughts about how this might effect the standard curve re: high voter turn out – why would things be the same as 2000 this time around?
There are now states with early voting, at which exit polls could be done. However, early voters may be atypical. At least, I have had described to me such data for one state, expected to go for Kerry, with Kerry where he was expected to be in the lead, Bush lagging, and largish (6% each) numbers for Badnarik and Cobb. As I said, early voters may be atypical.
I said (http://deep_blade.tripod.com/journal/index.blog?entry_id=233424) just this when Nader announced. Here in Maine, our state Democratic Party wasted countless hours and alienated thousands of Green voters (most of whom could be convinced to vote for Kerry with the right persuation) with an ill-conceived and ultimately failed attempt to deny Ralph Nader ballot access. Meanwhile, we can’t even get Kerry/Edwards lawn signs. Couldn’t some of that lawyer money have helped the ground campaign?
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~amoro/Research/presprobs.html#basic
Andrea Moro’s work from UMINN. She is calling it 51.4% probability of victory with a 6 EV margin towards Kerry for the final vote(Simulation study)
Basic work Bush 271.
MOBILIZE the troops! Her website has some really interesting visuals. It looks like bush is trending negative but we must keep up LTE’s to counter his prevarications.
Electoral Vote.com had 271 Bush 267 Kerry tonight. Bush is beatable!
The trendlines are running Kerry’s way but it is absolutely important that we sell our man to every undecided voter!
three of the four electoral vote predictors on 2004k.com were calling it for Kerry tonight. It is Kerry’s to lose! We need to help him put it away!
Kerry is not going to lose WI. Did you see the picture of the rally? I think the recent Strategic Vision polls (plus SUSA) has given the picture that WI is vulnerable. I don’t think this is going to happen. IA I could see Kerry losing. If it ends that way, Kerry wins with 2 out 3 big state strategy. No doubt about it, it’s going to be a rough fight in OH, FL, IA, and WI. I think PA is a lost cause for Bush. NH is going Kerry. Don’t even worry about NJ. NM is gonna be Kerry. NV, I’m not sure if Kerry’s time there is well spent. CO will probably go Bush. If this holds, Kerry wins!
I’ve spent a lot of time this year doing craft-registration of voters (craft = small number…17 this year…but maintaining contact and getting them to mobilized and to the polls and in many cases registering people themselves).
A lot of the population I deal with are natural Nader supporters, so I’m familiar with the demographic in this specific region.
Very few Nader supporters will vote Nader this time and will vote for Kerry. Reason: They believe Kerry is campaigning as what they view as a Democrat, while they didn’t vote for Gore Junior in 2000 because believed herwas campaigning as Kinder, Gentler Republican.
The Nader voters I meet now are more frequently not Nader supporters — they are “perfect voter” types who are conservative and generally vote Repub but will not vote for Bush Junior. And yes, there are some militant Nader supporters in the remainder, too.
But the Greenberg Fade effect will most probably happen, and especially in states perceived as close races.
The only problem with the current “Three State Theory” (whoever wins 2 out of 3 between OH, PA, FL wins the election) is that Bush is doing better in both WI and IA and that KE could win PA and OH, lose FL, IA, and WI, and lose the election. That may be why Kerry is campaigning in NV right now.
Some other potential areas for stumping may be NC, VA and WV. At least make Bush defend these.