Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 2/5 (380 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so one vote is that lethal? (0+ / 0-)

    RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

    by demographicarmageddon on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 11:25:18 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  In rare cases, yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      In this case, estimates by political scientists have varied between 3% and 8% penalty just for voting in favor of the bill. Cap and Trade has also been estimated to have a particularly large penalty, somewhere between 1% and 3%.

      23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

      by wwmiv on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 11:35:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  so someone like Mike Ross, who won 58% in 2010 (0+ / 0-)

        could still have won had he voted for PPACA?

        RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

        by demographicarmageddon on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 11:38:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I never saw a real correlation (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, jncca, LordMike

        between underperformance in 2010 and whether or not someone voted for the bill.  Chet Edwards, Stephanie Herseth, Travis Childers, Lincoln Davis, Walt Minnick, Glenn Nye, Zack Space, and Harry Teague all lost in landslides despite voting against the healthcare bill.  All in all, 17 of the 34 no-voters got turned out that year (and a few more retired rather than try).

        It's hard to draw apples to apples comparisons, since many of them represented the reddest districts and were prime takeover targets in a GOP wave year anyway.  But scrolling down the list of the 52 Dem incumbents bounced in 2010, even trying to take into account the margins of the losses, I don't see a really good correlation that indicates that representatives were punished differently depending whether they voted for the bill or not.  It seems like the wave just hit everyone more or less the same, and those in the weakest districts were the ones that took it the hardest, regardless of their votes.

        In any case, had Bob Kerrey been up for re-election in 2010, and voted for the bill, he certainly would have been targeted and defeated/pushed to retirement.  But in 2012, I think his chances would have been better as mania over the healthcare bill subsided.

        •  Wanted to add (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, jncca, LordMike

          I'm not trying to argue voting records don't matter or affect elections, or anything silly like that.  I think the big difference is that in 2010 the election was so nationalized over the passage of the healthcare bill, the economy, and other things, that individual votes became less important, and voters turned on their representatives just for associating with the party in charge at the time.

          I wish there was a way to really quantify the effects of specific votes (and I'm sure some statisticians believe they can do that), but there's so many variables at play.  I really don't think we could know with any real confidence what percentages specific representatives would have gotten if they had voted the other way.

          •  Isn't it possible (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, Skaje, LordMike

            That it is both? The healthcare bill backlash nationalized the election, so dems took an across the board cut, but dems that voted for it took an extra penalty?

            23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

            by wwmiv on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:50:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is quite possible (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, MichaelNY

              But Dems from blue districts that voted for it should not take any penalty.  In fact, voting for it was probably a benefit to an incumbent in such districts.  And as we know most of the votes in favor came from blue districts, so already we are throwing out most of the data points, increasing error in any analysis of a "vote penalty" in the remaining races.

              I'm sure there's some conclusions that could be drawn, but I'm just hesitant to believe someone can slap on a specific number and say that's the penalty for voting for a bill.  At the very least, penalty would have to be a function of PVI, with drastically different results depending on it (if Mike Ross had voted for it he may very well have taken a huge penalty...less certain about Larry Kissell in his old seat)  Like I said, apples to apples comparisons are hard here.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site