The False Nationalization of Mid-term Elections

The False Nationalization of Mid-term Elections

By Craig Leonard Brians, Assistant Professor in Political Science at Virginia Tech

Although some people want to look at local elections as national in scope; they are not. The outcome of the 2002 mid-term House of Representatives and U.S. Senate elections will certainly have an effect on the partisan balance in national politics. However, these legislative contests should no more be considered national elections than were the same races in 2000, with President Bush's "reverse coattails" (losing the majority in the Senate and a few seats in the House) or the Democrats' gaining five seats in the House during President Clinton's second mid-term election ("reverse mid-term loss").

While mid-term loss and presidential coattails attempt to gauge the effect of the national mood on legislative races, one is wise to recall that "all politics is local." Speaker Tip O'Neil's assertion is even more accurate today, particularly for his House. Contrary to most media analyses, mid-term elections have not been strongly tied to national elections for much of the last two decades.

House elections are disconnected from national politics for a variety of political- party and media-based reasons. First, there are few competitive races because of a strong incumbency advantage, poor challengers (both in candidate quality and campaign financing), and redistricting our representatives into "safe" districts. Second, the news media pay little attention to House races. Third, modern candidates rarely make partisan appeals that would link their candidacy to national party interests.

For example, when was the last time you heard a TV spot's voiceover implore, "Vote Republican for a change?" This type of party-based plea went out of vogue a good 20 years ago and has been seen infrequently since. House candidates rarely even identify their party in campaign literature. Thus, House races are increasingly "candidate centered" -- to borrow an appropriate phrase that Martin P. Wattenberg first applied to presidential races -- and increasingly divorced from national politics.

But didn't Newt Gingrich and the Republicans storm the House of Representatives in 1994 with a national party agenda? While that is the post-election conventional wisdom, there is precious little evidence that voters responded positively to the Contract with America in sufficient numbers to affect the election outcomes. In fact, according to New York Times polling data from 1994, only a minority of voters was even aware of this Republican pact, and it favorably affected even fewer voters' choices.

So, how did the Republicans gain more than 50 seats and control of the House in 1994? Most of the seats were gained from a) a strategic PAC and national party application of money to open seats, b) marginal candidates losing, c) a degree of anti-Washington sentiment, and d) some candidates' (and voters') switching parties, particularly in the South where conservative Democrats are still realigning with the Republican party. In that topsy-turvy election of eight years ago, how did incumbents fare? More than 89 percent of House members seeking reelection was successful, reinforcing the above points about politics' being local.

So, what do I predict for next Tuesday's elections? I predict that in these mid-term Congressional elections, most incumbents who run will be returned to office. I predict that these elections will not be bellwethers of anything -- anymore than other mid-term elections since 1978 have been indicators of any larger trend. While the partisan results of Tuesday's House and Senate voting will have national consequences, the causes of the races' outcomes are found much closer to home.