Book of the Month

From the Dagbloggers

more
Articleman's picture

The Best Political Blogpost of 2010 Keeps Giving: Senators Conrad, Lieberman, and the 2012 Senate

by Articleman 1/21/2011 - 7:33 pm   |

Like many others, I find Nate Silver to be the best predictive or quantitative writer about politics there is.  I was reminded of Nate's excellence when I was asked Wednesday what I thought of the decisions of Senator Kent Conrad (D.-N.D.) and Senator Joe Lieberman (I., but used to be D.-Conn.) not to run again for re-election.  The answer is simple, and lies in the best political blog post of 2010, Nate's November 8 piece:  2010:  An Aligning Election.

The point of Nate's post, in a nutshell, was that the 2010 Congressional elections served to "reinforce…existing political coalitions."  Put another way, the blue states got bluer, and the red states got redder.  Or perhaps the Kerry states got Kerryier and the Bush states got Bushier.  Nate analyzed the degree of correlation between President Obama's share of the vote in each Congressional district in the 2008 general election, and whether that district voted D or R for the House in 2008.  Obama's 2008 share of that vote explained 70% of the variance in each district's 2008 House vote.

But now?  In a later, different election, Obama's 2008 vote-share actually has far more explanatory force.  Nate found that 2008 voting for Obama explained 83% of the variance in 2010 House voting.  And he has some nifty charts that illustrate this well, if you'd like to read the post.

Which brings us back to the question:  why did Kent Conrad, a fiscally conservative Democrat from North Dakota, and Joe Lieberman, a maverick Democrat turned independent, both longstanding incumbents young enough to serve another term or two with ease, not run again?  The better question is actually why they should run again. 

Turning to the facts on the ground, North Dakota turned out of office by a wide margin even in 2010 terms (55-45) the personally popular and relatively conservative nine-term Democrat Earl Pomeroy.  Pomeroy's seat was an "at-large" one, in which the vote is statewide.  Just like a Senate seat.  Indeed, when North Dakota's other Senator (Democrat Byron Dorgan) retired, popular Republican former governor (and moderate) John Hoeven won the 2010 election unanimously.  Ok, it was only 54 points, 76-22.  It just felt unanimous.  North Dakota is aligning itself with the Republican column.  Senator Conrad would well have won, but his reelection would have been a much tougher go to be sure, despite the accolades he has won from many quarters during his terms of service, including Time Magazine labeling him in 2006 one of America's ten best Senators.

Joe Lieberman's case is much the same.  While the GOP rolled in the aligning House election of 2010, it returned all five incumbents to the House -- all Democrats -- by margins ranging from 53-47 to to 65-33.  Obama won Connecticut by 22 points, 60-38.  Meanwhile, Senator Lieberman spoke at the 2008 GOP convention in favor of his friend and colleague, Senator John McCain, and suggested at times that he might consider running in the future as a Republican.  While Lieberman drew enough Republicans in 2006 to win a relatively easy re-election over Democratic primary victor, Ned Lamont, Public Policy Polling last year tested the Senator's popularity and found that only 24% of Connecticut voters wished to re-elect him, while 66% preferred to replace him.  His approve/dispprove, per PPP, was 31/57.  You get the idea.

And so it is as the sage Mr. Silver convincingly argues in his post.  Our elections are more nationalized.   Presidential voting preference predicts downticket voting to a far greater degree, as ticket-splitting is less evident.  The Kerry states get Kerrier, the Bush states Bushier.  And in that environment, it would likely have been somewhat challenging even for a stalwart Senator like Kent Conrad to win another term, and would have been far harder than that for Joe Lieberman.  And with that, Connecticut will have Senators as liberal as most any state, and North Dakota far more conservative ones.

All of this leads me to the operating hypothesis that the Kerry/Bush state division will, roughly speaking, determine the 2012 Senate elections.  The hydraulic variation that will drag the trend line north or south on Nate's graphs -- e.g., the factor that will account for whether Democrats will will the blue states plus a few marginal states, overperforming that dividing line as they did in 2006 and 2008, or whether Republicans will win all reds and a few marginals, overperforming as they just did in 2010 -- is likely the popularity of President Obama, which presently appears to be principally a function of economic recovery and unemployment.  We'll get to that in a near-future post.

Subscribe to my RSS feed here.

It certainly holds true in Washington State, according to the Moore Information analysis, we are trending bluer. Puget Sound Blogs.

Nice blog, I do like Nate Silver, 538 was my go to place for the 2008 and even in 2010 in his new spot at the NYTimes.

by tmccarthy0 1/21/2011 - 9:04 pm

From the presidential election pov - given the Kerry states get Kerrier, the Bush states Bushier phenomenon - it would make sense that Obama would be looking to go after the marginal states.  The Kerryiest states are his and the Bushiest states are a lost cause.  Which means he will be spend the next year, starting with the SOTU speech, going even further towards the center.  To his advantage is that the Republican candidates for the GOP nomination have to play to the base over the next year.  This helps them in the Bushy states come the general election, but puts them at a disadvantage for those marginal states. 

by Another Trope 1/22/2011 - 1:24 am

Your comment reminded me of a mail from Joe Biden on the anniversary of the inauguration.  He made reference to regular folks in Pennsylvania, Iowa, and New Mexico.  They are, respectively, the Ohio of the blue states (to lose it the other way is surely fatal), and then two states that are part of any Obama win that achieves 270-300.  They are the marginal and swing states, along with Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.  

The immigration rhetoric is going to affect turnout in Nevada and Colorado, as it did in the Reid and Bennet-Buck races.  I think Obama has better prospects in North Carolina than New Hampshire.  Look for it to be the new critical state for the Democrats to pick up and win or fail to pick up, leaving a much harder path to victory.

by Articleman 1/22/2011 - 1:02 pm (re: Another Trope)

And so it is as the sage Mr. Silver convincingly argues in his post.  Our elections are more nationalized.   Presidential voting preference predicts downticket voting to a far greater degree, as ticket-splitting is less evident.  The Kerry states get Kerrier, the Bush states Bushier.

This may be slightly OT, but with the 'refudiation' of pork, which at least may have occassionally reminded members of Congress of their constituents back home, this latest Congressional crew seems bound and determined to kill health care reform, reduce the deficit by some not possible numbers and enact other ungodly acts that affect every citizen in the US. But the harm they cause will also directly affect every state, and currently most states are stretched beyond their limits as it is. One would think the Tea Partiers should at least worry about how their actions and votes will affect their districts and states, but I haven't heard much from them on this score.

Agree that Nate Silver is golden.

by seashell 1/22/2011 - 2:05 am

The repeal bills will not pass the Senate or if they somehow did would be vetoed by Obama, so the politics of HCR repeal will remain principally symbolic.  If you look at the NYT's new poll about Obama's approval rating, you see the two critical dips during the culmination of the HCR debate in spring 2010 and the House campaign in fall 2010 that was largely focused on repeal.  That issue is the most potent one the GOP has against re-electing a Democratic President.

On your point about spending reductions affecting people locally, something that will be interesting to see in Arizona, the NYT poll indicates real ambivalence about spending cuts needed if government is to address bringing the budget closer to balance.  I suspect that will lead to a re-discussion in the 2012 Presidential cycle of the Bush tax cuts, GOP-preferred spending cuts, and competing visions of appropriate deficit reduction.

by Articleman 1/22/2011 - 1:07 pm (re: seashell)

Latest Comments

more