Schiffer: When spin replaces historical analysis of election results

By ADAM SCHIFFER

Special to the Star-Telegram

In one of the least surprising developments of the year, the Republican and Democratic spin machines worked furiously to shape the public’s perception of Tuesday’s election outcomes. Even before Wednesday’s newspapers hit the stands, the cable networks anointed a two-part narrative as the victor of the spin war: One, the electorate sharply rebuked President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party. Two, the results portend great danger for Obama’s policy agenda and for the Democrats’ fate in the 2010 congressional elections.

The first part is absolutely false. The second part is probably true, but not for the reasons commonly assumed.

It is already conventional wisdom that the Republican victories in the New Jersey and Virginia governors’ races were a referendum on the president and the two national parties. The Fox News Web site’s Wednesday headline was typical: "Obama Dealt a Blow as Dems Face Backlash at Polls."

However, gubernatorial elections are mostly unrelated to national electoral outcomes. This was true when Democrats furiously spun their big New Jersey and Virginia victories in 2001, only to suffer a crushing defeat in the 2002 congressional elections; and it’s true today.

Political analyst Nate Silver recently compared the Obama vote across all 50 states to each state’s most recent governor’s race and found exactly zero correlation between a state’s support for Obama and the Democratic candidate’s fate in the gubernatorial race. Indeed, several states with Democratic reputations have Republican governors, such as California and Hawaii, whereas many "red" states have Democratic governors, including Montana, Wyoming and Arkansas.

A vivid example of this disconnect is Oklahoma. In both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, all 77 counties went Republican. However, sandwiched between those two years was Democratic Gov. Brad Henry’s landslide victory, in which his Republican opponent won only the three panhandle counties.

For a local example, think back to the 2006 Texas gubernatorial race. Incumbent Republican Rick Perry faced three opponents — two of whom were quirky independents — and squeaked out a victory in a year that overall was fantastic for Democrats nationwide. Anyone following the Star Telegram’s political coverage knows that next year’s race promises to be just as weird.

As for the second part of the conventional wisdom, it is indeed true that Democrats will likely face a tough national election cycle in 2010. However, if Tuesday’s results play a role, it will be only on account of the factually dubious media narrative becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The "Democrats got clobbered" perception has congealed as the dominant story. This will resonate with two groups that are key to determining the 2010 outcome: Democratic members of Congress who may decide next year is a good time to "spend more time with the family," and experienced, well-funded Republican challengers who smell blood in the water.

The early signs already point to a great recruiting year for promising Republicans, and Tuesday’s results will boost them further.

Additionally, the president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterm congressional elections. The last 100 years brought only three exceptions to this rule.

Unless the economy makes a drastic recovery, and Democrats produce some unlikely legislative victories, 2010 will not be such an exception.

None of this, however, flows directly from Tuesday’s results, unless the inaccurate media narrative helps to shape future events.

It is wise to be skeptical of the conventional wisdom that arises out of partisan spin, even if yours is the party benefiting from it in a given year.

Republicans need only remember the frustration last year when pundits declared your party "dead," a ridiculous proposition given the resilience of the current two-party alignment.

It would be helpful to citizens of all parties and ideologies if the cable news networks brought more historical perspective to the table, rather than simply giving voice to the most clever spin.

Adam Schiffer is an associate professor of Political Science at Texas Christian University. a.schiffer@tcu.edu

Looking for comments?