Band 8, Heft 4

One classic way to get perspective on the most recent election is to drop it into the full sweep of congressional elections across all of American history. A focus on partisan control of the House, on partisan control of national government, and on the difference in these between mid-term and presidential years provides a way to isolate elements of distinction for the mid-term of 2010. While this hardly provides a means of foretelling the future, it does suggest some key structural elements that help distinguish the most recent elections from even their immediate predecessors.

This paper addresses three key questions related to the midterm elections of 2010: What happened? Why? And what difference does it make? Republicans made historic gains in the U.S. House and in state elections while making strong gains in the U.S. Senate. They benefited from an economic and issue environment that strongly favored them; in the House they also benefited from the overexposure of Democrats. Republican Senate gains were limited partly because Democrats were not overexposed there and partly due to factors specific to individual races, particularly candidate quality. A number of key demographics moved against Democrats, and the elections were marked by the emergence of a new popular movement in the form of the Tea Party which helped mobilize Republicans and conservative independents. The election results are best understood as a repudiation of Democratic rule, though a simple economic explanation is not sufficient. The long-term importance of the 2010 elections will depend on the interaction of important contingencies with the underlying alignment of the electorate, the character of which remains uncertain.

Democrats were trounced in the 2010 midterm elections. They lost six seats in the U.S. Senate, six governorships, and about 700 seats in state legislatures. Compared to 2008, Democrats lost 64 seats in the House and Republicans regained their House majority. The Republican majority elected in 2010 was the largest number of Republicans elected since 1946. The analysis finds that Republican seat gains resulted from the receding of the pro-Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008 as well as the incoming pro-Republican wave of 2010. Voters rejected Democrats in 2010 for their failure to revive the economy, but also for their advancement of the national healthcare reform and other liberal policies. The analysis speculates that Democrats are likely to gain House seats and lose Senate seats in 2012. Finally, President Obama’s prospects of re-election have probably been improved because of the Republican gains in the 2010 midterm.

Political advertising offers an important window on American campaigns and elections. We analyze a comprehensive database of political ads aired during the 2010 midterms to shed light on campaign strategies in this history-making election. We find that with the increase in competitive races in 2010, the volume of advertising rose too, as did its negativity. Moreover, we track the issues mentioned by each party, finding that while the parties agreed that employment was the top issue, there was also much divergence in issue priorities, with Republicans taking up some unlikely themes such as health care and “change.” The high volume of advertising in 2010 suggests a greater potential for voter learning, but the high levels of ad negativity could have had both positive and negative consequences on the electorate.

This article is an examination of the Tea Party movement's effects on the 2010 midterm elections. The Tea Party proves to be a grassroots movement that was initially spurred by economic crisis and gradually pulled within the Republican Party. While a handful of experienced conservative interest groups—and the Republican Party itself—managed to use the energies of Tea Party sentiment to effect a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, the movement's decentralized and independent nature prevented grassroots Tea Party groups from being a significant force in the election. While Tea Party supporters continue to resist organization, the effective translation of their political concerns into policy change seems very unlikely. Moreover, in the absence of severe economic crisis, their fortunes seem certain to be determined by the Republican Party.

The 2010 elections produced the largest number of political amateurs elected to Congress in more than sixty years. This article will examine both the popular fascination with amateur candidates and the scholarly interest in political careers. Specifically, I will discuss celebrity politicians, amateurs who become celebrities because of their unusual campaigns, the impact of the Tea Party, and the implications of the large class of amateurs for ambition theory and the strategic-politicians hypothesis.

In January 2010, the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC overturned long-standing regulations governing the role of unions and corporations in sponsoring pro-candidate advocacy. Many predicted a deleterious effect on the electoral process. In the aftermath of the midterm elections, a number of questions deserve consideration. Was the observed level of outside spending abnormally high in 2010? What can we say about the potential effect of outside spending on the outcomes of House and Senate races? Moreover, what has the decision done to the power of parties and, most especially, their ability to compete with special interests in backing federal candidates? This paper investigates these questions using data from the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracked political ads in 2010. The initial evidence suggests that while interest groups were aggressive players in the air war, their impact may not have been as negative or as large as initially predicted.

I place national turnout rates in historical perspective and investigate what state turnout rates may tell us about what factors are related to higher levels of voter participation. In midterm elections compared to presidential election, voter turnout is lower among all groups, but more so for young people. I discuss the implications of younger citizens' disengagement in midterm elections in light of an increasing gap in support for the political parties’ candidates among the young and the old.

This article examines campaign dynamics and the evolution of voter preferences for congressional candidates during the 2010 midterm election cycle. Using national pre-election polls of registered voters, I show that there was meaningful change in voter preferences over the course of the campaign and that support for Democratic contenders declined considerably between early March and Election Day. The evidence I present also reveals growing support for Republican contenders was linked to developments during the campaign period. Specifically, the erosion in Obama approval, deterioration in national economic conditions and the passage of the health reform legislation appeared to fuel the Democratic downturn.

Less than two years ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as president amidst proclamations of a partisan realignment. But in this fall’s midterms, scores of his fellow Democrats lost their jobs. The best evidence suggests that Obama’s signature accomplishment—passage of a healthcare reform bill that had long eluded progressives—played a key role in the historic defeat. It also highlighted the delicacy of partisan regimes, particularly those prematurely designated as realignments by academic or popular observers.

Forming party strategy is never easy because of the uncertainty of how the electorate will react. In 2009 and 2010, Democrats sought to address two major problems – the economy and health insurance – and hoped they would get credit for responding effectively. Quite the opposite occurred. Forming party strategy remains an art.