by Richard Florida Info
Richard Florida is director of the University of Toronto’s Martin Prosperity Institute and author of The Great Reset.
Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
The pundits say Tuesday's election was a repudiation of Obama's handling of the recession, but Richard Florida says the data show something entirely different.
The conventional wisdom among pundits, pollsters and political analysts about the Republican victory in the midterms is that it represents a referendum on—and a stunning repudiation of—the Obama administration’s stewardship of the economy. “U.S. registered voters choose economic conditions by nearly a 2-to-1 margin over any of four other key election issues as the most important to their vote for Congress,” according to a Gallup analysis, a result that held “across all partisan groups.”
But the geographic patterns of Tuesday’s historic election results reveal a curious paradox. While the economy was clearly the voters’ No. 1 concern, economic conditions alone cannot explain why they cast their ballots as they did. A Wall Street Journal analysis of House races found that Democrats held onto their seats in congressional districts that were feeling the recession the worst. “Of the 25 congressional districts hit hardest by the recession—measured by joblessness, poverty rates and housing prices—16 are currently represented by Democrats. Fourteen of them won re-election despite the Republican tide.”
Economic factors did not drive state-wide races for Senate or governor, either. Democrats, for instance, held onto governorships in the blue states of New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland, and they won a victory in California even though it has taken a tremendous economic hit. Despite the massive Republican pickup in the House and smaller gains in the Senate and governors races, the American electoral map continues to reflect its long-held red vs. blue shading.
Columbia University's Andrew Gelman’s influential book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State sheds light on this conundrum. Rich voters trend Republican, Gelman and his colleagues found, while rich states trend Democratic. My own earlier analysis of polling data suggested that short-term economic factors like the unemployment rate or changes in housing values provided little explanation of state favorites for Senate or governor, while more deep-seated structural factors like income, social class, attitudes toward religion, and openness toward immigrants, as well as gays and lesbians were more likely to hold sway.
We witnessed no massive realigning of the electoral map, instead, America remains divided along the same political, cultural, and economic axes.
With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I took a close look at factors associated with the recession’s impact—like the change in unemployment and in housing prices since the onset of the crisis—that might have influenced voters. We also looked at income and several other structural variables. In The Emerging Democratic Majority, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira argued that Democrats have gained an advantage by adding the wealthier knowledge workers who cluster in urban centers to their historic base among poorer populations and minority groups. On the Red side of the divide, blue-collar working class voters have been shifting into the Republican column. Taking this into account, we examined the relations of work and class and partisan choice. Following Ronald Inglehart’s lead, we also looked at the relations between religious values, tolerance, and political preferences. Confining our analysis to state-wide Senate and gubernatorial races, we conducted a basic correlation analysis and compared the results for the current midterm. We also compared the mid-term pattern to the state-by-state vote for Obama and McCain in the 2008 presidential race. As always, we caution readers not to make too much of these findings. The size of the sample is small, and our analysis can only identify relationships among variables, and in no way implies causation. Still, a number of very interesting patterns emerge.
Here is what we found:
Despite all the hubbub about the economy, we found no evidence at all that short-term economic factors—unemployment and housing prices—significantly shaped state-wide voting patterns for either party. This is not to say that short-term economic factors did not matter at the margin: Clearly, election returns and exit polls clearly showed that many individuals shifted their 2008 Democratic vote to a Republican one in the midterms. But at the state level, deeper factors remained by far the dominant factor.
AP Photos
Income and class remain important, but less so than in the ’08 presidential race. Higher income states went for Obama, while lower income states went for McCain.
This trend continued to hold for Senate races, with higher income states voting Democrat and lower incomes states trending Republican, but not for gubernatorial races.
123 November 4, 2010 | 3:07pm Twitter Emails
Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
"Republican claims to fiscal probity are a little difficult to buy into," said Simon Tilford, the chief economist at the Center for European Reform in London. "What they're advocating would probably increase the deficit rather than effect the dramatic reduction which they claim they want to bring about." - Senator-elect Marco Rubio (R-FL): "We make a grave mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party." - Fox News pundit Brit Hume: "The Republican Party is not the beneficiary of some mandate this time around." - Former chief economic policy adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign Douglas Holtz-Eakin: "This isn't a pro-Republican vote. It's not an endorsement of Republican agendas." - RNC head Michael Steele: "There's still the people who say, 'well we're not sure. We're not sure about Republican leadership, we're not sure about the direction.'" - Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI): "This is not necessarily 'we love Republicans.'
FLF, never thought I'd agree with you - but your point stands. If the Republicans are the same old Bush Republicans, they will get thrown out next time around. (at least we can only hope).
They're worse, but you're too stupid to realize that, and just gobbled up all of their lies instead.
The D's held the districts with the highest unemployment BECAUSE these voters know the D's are on the side of the workers. The Blue Dogs were tossed since they didn't have the courage to stand by their votes on healthcare and stimulus.
It was the electorate's ignorance and a very well run propaganda machine the GOP has. If anyone thinks spending is out of control they are retarded. If you voted R because Obama hasn't brought back all the jobs the GOP shipped out the country and he hasn't erased the 13 trillion of debt the Republicans put on the backs of Americans. Your retarded. Letting the GOP control any part of our government is retarded. It's like letting the guy who robbed the bank. Who then stood outside the bank screaming where is my money. Manage the bank.
@SensiStar: Cosign. This has been the most irrational mid-term election I have ever witnessed. Just plain retarded. I'm shaking my head as I type. I've been shaking my head a lot in the last few days.
Boehner is a sleazer from way back...and he even uttered the words we all get to laugh at most...'We've changed" That is beyond funny. A bit sad, even.
We all agree with those statements. But we all know this: it was certainly a repudiation of Obama and the Democrats agenda. The point most of those were making is that the Republicans have not been fiscally conservatives, however, we all know the DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER BEEN FISCALLY CONSERVATIVES.
Is it a complete repudiation? Or is it just voter anger directed at the party in control? I don't really think most people even understand what the agenda has been or is. I really don't. A TN elect was on the other night talking about slashing spending but like everyone else, will not commit to what she will support slashing - she said across the board 3% but not SS, Medicare, not Homeland Security, Veterans Benefits, Defense - by the time she was done, 97% of the budget was exempt from the 3% slashing. So I guess we will slash 3% of 3% - maybe? There is nothing simple about paying for two wars, homeland security, an aging population, returning wounded veterans fighting 10 year wars with an all volunteer service team, and dealing with 'overreaching' corporations and banks who cooked the books far too long. Exactly what is it that we are going to cut? Really? And will it be enough to make a real difference? Even Warren Buffett along with other billionaires says that extending the Bush Tax Cuts (and having them in the first place) under the circumstances we've been in the last 10 years and certainly now is insane. Fiscal conservativism is a slogan. Life is too complicated. Our influence in the world is too large. You can't go back and my question is, if you could go back, where or when would you go back to?
Clinton balanced the budget. Bush took it to 13 trillion. Want to rethink that last sentence?
Excuse me, Jose, but can you pinpoint a time when the Republican Party were fiscally conservative? When has the Republican Party, when they were in power, left this country in good financial standing? I'll tell you: Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton (BOTH DEMOCRATS) in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. I suggest you read that last part again.
People elected Obama and the Democrats over the last two national elections by strong margins; so, much of the Democratic agenda was favorable to the electorate. Close to 2/3 of the country was in favor of healthcare reform and Wall Street regulation. The problem has been leadership, both in the White House and Senate. Pelosi's house legislated and Obama and Reid dropped the ball. I think Americans are still in favor of financial oversight. The Dems lost the message largely because the president was not presidential. Obama started out practically apologizing for winning the election, by a landslide. He must lead!
To Richard Florida, Thank for a well thought out analysis! What a refreshing change from the pundits and their talking points. On behalf of those of us who CRAVE more thoughtful, well thought out analysis, truth, ideas and discussion from both sides (even if we disagree!) Salute you!
it was the economy that got Obama elected,and the economy that got the Repubs the...House? That's all they could get? The rabble center? Weak effort.
Yeah, Richard, actually it was about the economy. Read the New Republic. Blue collar white guys who had returned to the Democrat party in 2006 and 2008 jumped ship in 2010.
It wasn't about the economy, it was about enlightenment and moving forward vs. ignorance, regressiveness, and stupidity. Unfortunately there was no hope for a country obsessed with someone named Snooki.
FLF.what's up??.....you're correct today...
Come on FLF- Do you REALLY think ANYTHING would be the way it is now If unemployment was at 5%? Here- Let Rita answer that for you- Hell NO!! THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL AND COMPLETE GAME CHANGER !!! So In summation- May I just say that it is in fact ALL about the economy And thanks for listening.
@Ritarita: Sure American voters are pissed that their world has been shaken up. But to not get WHICH party actually did that to them is beyond pathetic. To fall back into the arms of the Rethugs and not display a modicum of patience -- which having been on the brink of a depression requires, since jobs are the very LAST thing to ever come back -- is, as FLF says, retarded.
Joy- Chaos was bound To follow in the wake of a collapse The size of the one in Fall 2008. We are all lucky it wasn't much MUCH worse- It had the potential.
Look where people voted Democtrat. The most highly taxed, highest unemployment, highest Union membership states. They lect their local officials that got them into the mess and they elect national reps to try to get the rest of the country into that mess.
They fear the Republican disaster that got us into a two front war as well as the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression. Some people can remember back further than a couple of years. I know many Republicans that didn't vote in this election because of this and it'll continue to haunt cons for many many more years.
There are so many union bashing posts here. The fact is that union workers make far more than their non-union counterparts. Unionization often raises them into the middle class rather than being working poor. I wish market forces would take care of paying people decent wages, but it didn't work in the past and it doesn't work now. The differences in blue collar type jobs in pretty huge. Check it out before you bash unions - they serve a function and make raising a family possible for many Americans. http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/jobsemployment/a/unionwages.htm
It's great that you point out that states like New York are some of the most highly taxed in the nation. And the reason that's so great is those taxes go to support military bases in flyover country - like Alabama! Doesn't NASA have a pretty large facility in Huntsville? And doesn't your state have some of those farmers who collect subsidy payments from the federal treasury? Let's see if the republicans who now control the House, decide to balance the budget by getting rid of an unnecessary military base or two, slashing the budget for the space program and ending all of those pork-barrel projects that find their way into that biennial agriculture bill. I'll wait!
Why do you dims need to be repeatedly reminded that it was the Republicans who created this mess?
Boy, you REALLY didn't read this article, now did you? Cretan-like repetition of Rethug talking points makes you sound ignorant.
Just a great analysis because what we've become is a maker versus the taker nation. Of course the poor voted Democrat, they are on the "welfare plantation". Same with state workers and their unions. Anyone in private industry understands what a burden government has become, including teachers unions. Producers see over 50% of their income seized in taxes, and given over to government programs, wars we shouldn't be fighting, interest on spiraling debt, and bloated government payrolls. Takers want their welfare system, ridiculous to fund pension programs, and secure over-paid government jobs. Anywhere you have high welfare you have high Democrat support. But guess what? The producers can no longer produce what the takers are taking! economic reality will accomplish what conservatism could not; it will destroy the liberal, socialist policies we've been under since FDR. Including that ponzi scheme called Social Security.
I've heard this makers vs. takers argument before. Ayn Rand, right? The problem with her vision though is that her 'leaders' actually made things themselves. Today's CEO's can't even make their beds. Businesses have sent a lot of jobs overseas. There isn't enough work. Today the takers are the rich, taking jobs and profits overseas. Taking away from the makers, the workers, the middle class that used to be the backbone of this country.
Whats even funnier is the middle class Americans that voted republican. You mean the producers aren't the ones only making $45k/yr as opposed to the CEO's that produce nothing and make $50 million? Riiiiiight. REPUBLICANS ARE THE ONES THAT FORCE US TO RAISE TAXES BECAUSE THEY AREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEFICIT! Read the writing on the wall.
Ah Herman, so full of facts and compassion. Aren't you a man to make every American proud!
Read Full Article »