Oct. 15, 2002
Midterm Elections 2002:
The Old, The New, and The Latest
An Analysis of the Nov. 5 Elections
By Michael
Cornfield
Academics specializing in political analysis
are the yin to the punditocracy’s yang: We put the emphasis on
continuities, not changes. Consider this year’s national elections.
Campaign pundits race after the news, swerving from one big development
(the corporate accountability scandals) to another (talk of war against
Iraq), trying to figure out what each story portends for the battle
to win control of the House and Senate. Campaign academics watch the
scramble with Dooley Wilson ringing in their ears: The fundamental things
apply. Here are five things worth remembering as the time until Nov.
5 goes by.
1. Most House races are rigged in favor of the incumbents, but many
other races are not. The 2002 elections come on the heels of the
decennial redistricting. Each major party uses computers to redraw district
boundaries so as to extract the maximum number of seats out of the states
whose reapportionment process they control. This self-interested mapping
usually entails concentrating support for the other party, and thus
preserves some of its incumbents, too. Only a handful of states, such
as Iowa, turn redistricting over to a nonpartisan commission.
The consensus among the tipsters who track House races is that only
40–50 are seriously contested. You don’t need a computer to
tell you that’s a mere one in 10. (In Iowa, as many as three of
the four House races could go either way.) The picture looks different
for the 34 Senate and 36 governor’s races. Half of these are tightly
contested. Other ballots lack close races at the top, but feature local
elections and ballot initiatives whose outcome is in doubt. Northern
Virginians, for example, will decide whether to increase their local
sales taxes to fund transportation projects.
So there are good reasons for citizens to show up and vote on Election
Day. However… .
2. Most eligible voters do not vote. Since 1970, the turnout
rate for midterm elections has fluctuated between 37–40 percent
of eligible voters. Over 100 million Americans insulate themselves from
this basic democratic exercise through a welter of distractions and
excuses. Most states abet this civic irresponsibility by not allowing
same-day voting registration. Another factor depressing turnout depresses
even those who show up at the polls, namely… .
3. The media dole out political tidbits drenched in cynicism and
derision. A popular menu item these days are news stories that point
out who has given money to whom. The dollar figures usually lack any
context other than the one of implied corruption; when the media report
that a congressman is spending a million dollars to get re-elected,
that seems like a lot of money (with strings attached), instead of slightly
over $1 per constituent (with the strings in tangles). (For a fresh
look at these points and the role the Internet plays in them, check
out SMPA/Journalism Professor Albert May’s new report, “The
Virtual Trail,” at www.ipdi.org.)
Now, it is true that… .
4. Money plays a crucial role in American politics. Close races
attract high-stakes betting from special interests across the country,
an important and interesting story to report. The casino metaphor is
especially apt this year because it is not only the last legal year
for national parties to raise soft money, but also the last weeks to
spend it. So lots of spending records will be broken (again).
Is the imputation of corruption warranted? It is indisputable that the
upper class has the upper hand in policymaking. Less noticed, but equally
foreboding, money has warped the daily lives of American politicians,
who spend far too much time raising it. Even politicians with safe seats
raise money constantly. They set up “leadership PACs” to curry
favor among their colleagues and potential colleagues. This is why Congress
rarely meets on Mondays and Fridays. This is why the current president
and vice president address the nation as often from hotel ballrooms
as from the White House.
However, it is not so clear that money decides elections. You certainly
can’t win an election without a baseline amount of money that increases
every cycle. (One Reason: Television stations flout their public responsibilities
and gouge campaigners for ad time.) You certainly can scare off opponents
with early money. But against an incumbent, or in a close race, having
lots of money guarantees nothing. Strategy and execution of strategy
— that is, taking the right positions on the right issues at the
right moments, and getting the right people to show up on election day
— decide more of the close races than money. Which means that…
.
5. Those who turn out to vote are coveted by politicians. “We
must act now on prescription drugs” is code for “let’s
help the seniors, they vote in droves.” Equally coveted are the
campaign professionals who specialize in turnout. (They only make the
news when they are corrupt, but most are not corrupt.) And here’s
an idealistic twist: Turnout specialists and those they get to the polls
don’t respond to big money. They respond to ideas and personal
appeals, and to strategically adroit presentations of same.
So what’s going to happen? There’s a sixth fundamental, but
I’m not sure it applies this year… .
6. The President’s party loses Congressional seats in the midterm
election. The current (late September) talk is of the GOP trumping
the Democrats’ apparent advantage on economic issues with national
security. Indeed, we may have another 1998, where the President’s
party actually picks up seats. But keep in mind that in 1962, a year
many remember because of “The Missiles of October” (the Cuba
crisis), Kennedy’s Democrats lost four House seats and gained three
in the Senate. Ah, you say, national security helps Republican presidents
more than Democrats. Yet in 1990, as American troops gathered in the
Persian Gulf, Bush’s Republicans lost nine House seats and one
Senate seat.
When the President’s party loses seats, it’s mainly because
voters are dissatisfied with his record. This president’s record,
from tax cuts to the post Sept. 11 response, is very much a long-term
matter. This uncertainty, combined with the tiny margin separating the
parties in Congress and public opinion polls, and the small number of
House seats in play, suggests that any loss, or counter-trend gain,
will be insignificant unless one or both chambers actually change hands.
Michael Cornfield teaches in the Graduate School of Political Management,
and serves as Research Director for the Institute on Politics, Democracy,
and the Internet.
Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu
