In the days after the US midterm elections cable news outlets, radio programs, political pundits, newspapers, and activists on both sides of the ideological spectrum have exerted a great deal of blood and sweat to explain the nationwide drubbing of the Democrats. Democrats are predictably covering their behinds—conceding voter anger, but cautioning that the country has not lurched to the right in just two years. Republicans are claiming validation of their position and a greater ideological alignment with the American people. Activists and enthusiasts of all stripes are weaving narratives that use the election results to validate their personal political perspective. The question, of course, is whether any of this is correct or meaningful. Was this election a mass repudiation of Democratic policies? Was it a validation of the Republican platform and/or Tea Party-style conservatives?
Elections are like Rorschach bots—everyone sees something different, and often times what they see is what they want to see. Particularly with elections, people like to place causation in the hands of people—agents—whose efforts, words, thoughts, etc, drive the outcome. And to be sure, individual agents can and do wield a great deal of influence on events. But an overemphasis on agents can lead to spurious conclusions about why something happens. You must also look at structural or environmental factors.
Over at the Monkey Cage, John Snides has a great piece precisely along these lines. Snides and his colleagues looked at which factors where the best predictors of voter choice:
If you had one thing, and one thing only, to predict which Democratic House incumbents would lose their seats in 2010, what would you take? The amount of money they raised? Their TARP vote? Their health care vote? Whether they had a Tea Party opponent? A Nazi reenactor opponent?
Not surprisingly, it’s none of those.
As is typically the case, the partisan makeup of a politician’s district mostly determines which candidate will win.  Snides and his colleagues found that the 2008 Presidential vote in a district explained 83% of the variation in the 2010 vote share (see graph below).
This data does not negate agent-centered factors, but it certainly dulls them.  Additionally, many of the theories being thrown about (the vote was a referendum on Obama, on Democrats, on “Big Government”, etc) just don’t have the explanatory power that the partisan makeup of a district has.
What’s clear is that, structurally speaking, the Democrats were set up for a shellacking. Â Historically, the President’s party takes a big hit in the midterms, incumbents are punished in a poor economy (regardless of their control over it), and incumbents in swing districts will be the first to go. Â Many of the seats Democrats gained in 2006 and 2008 to take a commanding majority in the House were obtained by targeting vulnerable Republicans in swing districts. Â Conservative Democrats ran and won in those districts, meaning they faced a center-right electorate. Â Given these structural factors, it is no surprise that the Democrats lost so many seats.
Structural explanations are not very sexy. Â They don’t allow a ton of room for debate and analysis after the initial work is done. Â By their nature, there isn’t a whole lot that can be done to alter the conditions (i.e. a reduced role for agency). Â And they don’t really allow people to indulge in great philosophical and ideological satisfaction. Â But, at the end of the day, they can be powerful explanations. Â Democrats in 2006 and 2008 were overzealous in their interpretation of what those election results implied, and the same may happen to Republicans in 2010. Â Savvy politicians and operatives should take heed.
[Cross-posted at Signal/Noise]
This really should be read as a satire of “political science” but I fear it's serious.
Those lovely new robes of the Emperor…
Just because you don't like the implications doesn't make the argument wrong.Â
The number one predictor of party turn over is the perception of how well the economy is doing.  I don't care if partisanship correlated with the vote, I knew a year ago what would happen. One correlation in an election year does not make a 'structure'.
@Charles: agreed, but the economy is just as much a structural condition as the partisan or ideological composition of districts (which is also quite stabble outside of redistricting). Â When you combine the two it was inevitable that the Democrats were set up for a drubbing. Â
These are two distinct issues: whether the incumbent party is likely to lose significant seats and where those seats are most likely to be.Â
Dan, I don't know if they are that distinct, but I see your point. Â
Â
The degree to which a party is likely to lose seats is dependent on the degree of safe seats.  Safe seats are a function of the partisan distribution within districts.  “Political time” and economic circumstances created the conditions for loss, but the make up of districts increased the extent of losses–so “likelihood of significant losses” is determined by both.  Had there been a different partisan distribution within districts it would have acted as a buffer.  Instead, it enabled great losses.
I look at it this way: partisan distribution (if stable) creates a baseline against which forces that impact (1) differential turnout and (2) swing voter preferences act. So while the Democrats were structurally vulnerable, different environmental factors (e.g., a more favorable perception of the state of the economy) would have led to fewer “D” losses.
@BPetti, the economy is the most widely agreed upon structural condition, but how well the economy does depends on the perception of how well it is doing, as we can see now with the current economic growth combined with stagnant consumption and investment. The evaluations of pundits/experts regularly cause swings in the DOW. If we were able to rerun history with the perception of a positive economy, the same partisan distribution would have likely resulted in much different results. This means that the particular correlation of partisanship in the 2008 election is only a valuable predictor under the conditions of the worst recession since WWII. Structure is in part determined by perception, making it less 'structure', hence the marks.
Yes, but 'perception' is in fact determined by 'structural' conditions. The number and types of pundits do not float freely within the geographic space of the US, allowing for any imaginable set of statements about any particular set of political or social conditions; rather, these statements are quite constrained and predictable. The punditry within the US are frequently partisan hacks reflecting talking points constructed by the parties themselves, which are groups that exist within structural conditions of socio-economics, culture, and history. The US public derives its perceptions within a certain cultural milieu — a structure if you will — that helps constrain and constitute values and preferences and appropriate types of action for particular situations. What people think is not entirely determined within their heads. What people think in their heads does not carry equal weight within the economy, structural conditions determine the weight effects of those thoughts on the economy itself. Thus, someone without a lot of money like myself is less likely to have an effect on the economy by thinking its going well than someone with a lot of bucks who thinks the economy is going well. Of course, people are not entirely determined by structure, but to claim some sort of liberal ontology that posits a dichotomy between agency and structure seems a bit silly. Â
The statement 'perception is in fact determined by structural conditions' leaves no room for equivocation, which is found eight lines later and in your final sentence when you admit that what is inside people's heads is only partially affected by structure.
Perception can produce structural material conditions, like when one billionaire triggers a currency crisis. Wealth concentration increases the effects of perception, as you noted above. And no one claimed to be able to transcend time and space, so you can skip that strawman.