Shut Out
For those Democrats who are still thinking of this year's election as "historic" here's a bit more data for you.
For the first time in the post-WWII period, and possibly ever, a political party has been completely shut-out and failed to pick up even a single elected position in either the House or Senate. Even the Gubernatorial well was dry.
The final door closed following Republican challenger Max Burns' decision Thursday not to challenge the vote totals form his unsuccessful run against the incumbent Democratic Representative, John Barrow of Georgia.
It should be noted that many of the seats won by Democrats were in conservative-to-moderate districts. Much of the resulting analysis has been that it was the conservative "blue dog" Democrats that won the day and that this represents a "shift" in the electorate in a more conservative direction. Yet there are examples that indicate this election was less about ideology and more about performance and opposition.
Over at the liberal magazine Washington Monthly, their blogger-in-residence took a look at some analysis showing that Republican losses occurred evenly across the conservative end of the spectrum, with only the hard-core members surviving unscathed. His conclusion; that the voters were not rejecting ideology, but punishing the Republican party. That many of these Democrats look like their districts make sense, they are still moderate to conservative districts, the voters have just decided to hand the wheel over to someone else.
The exception that proves the rule is the defeat of five-time incumbent Republican Rep. Ann Northup in Kentucky. She was defeated by a liberal publisher, John Yarmuth. Northup lost the Democrats that previously sent her to Congress despite winning 175 precincts where Democrats outnumber Republicans, those made up 35% of the precincts. The progressives turned out the vote at the same time the middle dropped out from under Northup. That little "R" at the end of her name cut short a steady streak.
"many of the seats won by Democrats were in conservative-to-moderate districts."
Conservative-to-moderate? What does this mean? The Democrats only managed to flip 5 seats in the conservative South, and the seats in the Northeast, where the Democrats won the most seats, are moderate-to-liberal.
Posted by Clark on Fri., Nov 17, 2006 at 8:43 AMMost of the northeastern districts that the Dems picked up are moderate suburban areas that were mostly Republican during the 1980's and have trended more Democratic since the 1990's.
And one could hardly describe the midwestern seats the Democrats picked up in Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and Kansas as hotbeds of liberalism.
Posted by Tim on Fri., Nov 17, 2006 at 10:26 AM"Most of the northeastern districts that the Dems picked up are moderate suburban areas that were mostly Republican during the 1980's and have trended more Democratic since the 1990's."
Yes, they were trending liberal.
"And one could hardly describe the midwestern seats the Democrats picked up in Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and Kansas as hotbeds of liberalism."
The Democrats who picked up those seats were considerably more liberal than their Republican opponents. Some, like Sherrod Brown, are unabashedly liberal. I've yet to see anyone show that a single Democratic challenger ran to the right of a Republican incumbent and won.
I realize I'm nitpicking a little bit here - I don't believe that the election was a huge mandate for liberalism, but the 110th Congress is now considerably more liberal than any in a long time. It's certainly a great deal more liberal than the 109th Congress.
Both Iowa seats are pretty Democratic. IA-2 has a +7 Cook rating alone. And Loebsack is pretty liberal--he was my college advisor.
Simmons seat is pretty liberal as well.
Pretty much by definition most seats that were in play were in moderate districts. That said, Pombo was hard right and his replacement is pretty leftwing so the District is swing, but not necessarily the inhabitants. Bass's seat was Democratic leaning as well and the other NH seat is now represented by a very progressive Democrat.
I'm not sure what it means to say that there was a electoral shift to the right when candidates who all ran to the left of their opponents won. It just doesn't make any sense. There wasn't a huge liberal realignment like in 1932/34, but that doesn't mean Congress isn't more liberal than it was. It most certainly is. The class of Democratic Freshman is pretty diverse ideologically, though all of them are to the left of where their opponents were.
Others like Tester, Brown, and Whitehouse are all liberals. Tester isn't on one issue--guns. Webb is offering up some of the most liberal arguments for class inequality in some time.
Trying to argue that this election shifted the country to the right is simply wrong. Overall, the public didn't move ideologically a whole lot, but it didn't move a whole lot in 1994 either.
Posted by archpundit on Fri., Nov 17, 2006 at 4:10 PM"His conclusion; that the voters were not rejecting ideology, but punishing the Republican party."
I think the voters did a little multi-tasking. Of course they rejected the Republicans AND the Congress became more liberal. Archpundit is correct about the individuals--Claire is more liberal than Talent; Tester is a liberal and Burns certainly wasn't--Tester wants to repeal the Patriot Act!
I hope these guys have the courage of their convictions because after listening to the leaks about the war over the last two days, it's pretty clear Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about what the voters said last week. If there is to be change the Congress and the American people are going to have to fight the President.
Posted by kate on Fri., Nov 17, 2006 at 11:49 PM
Right a Wrong. Submit any tips or story ideas by using our anonymous email form. Confidentiality is guaranteed.