There is little doubt that 2010 will be a bad year for Democrats, with many Democratic incumbents likely to lose to Republican challengers in both House and Senate races. The real question is how bad it will be -- will enough Democratic incumbents lose to shift control of the House (and possibly Senate) to the Republicans?
While many things are working against Democratic incumbents this year, the public's tendency to be risk averse may make the difference in allowing some incumbents to win campaigns that they might otherwise have lost. In a recent paper, David Eckles and I show that voters who are more risk averse are more likely to vote for incumbent House members, even when controlling for a number of other factors. The general idea here is that voters will be less sure about what a challenger will actually do once in office, so if a voter is averse to risk-taking, this will make them more willing to support the incumbent even when the challenger appears to be a pretty good alternative. People treat consumer products similarly. For example, one study found that 40% of experimental subjects preferred their "incumbent" skin lotion brand to a "challenger" brand, even though they recognized that the "challenger" brand was superior.
In our analysis of vote decisions in 2008 House races, we find that risk aversion is such an influential force that it often causes voters to vote for the incumbent even though they recognize that the challenger's ideology is significantly closer to their own. Since the vast majority of citizens are generally averse to taking risks, this constitutes a significant advantage for any incumbent candidate.
Of course, many polls are showing that citizens seem to prefer the Republican challenger in their House and Senate races in spite of this risk aversion. The question is whether voters will act more risk averse when they actually go to cast their ballots than they do when they express a vote preference to pollsters. To gain some insight on this question, I looked back at the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), which was conducted by YouGov/Polimetrix (disclosure: I was part of a team that sponsored the module to the 2008 CCES that I analyze here). The CCES includes both a pre- and post-election survey of the same voters; therefore, I am able to compare whom a voter said they preferred in October to who they actually reported voting for in November. The chart below shows the percentage of respondents that ended up voting for the incumbent House candidate depending on whether they said in the pre-election survey that they preferred the challenger, the incumbent, or if they were undecided. Overall, those who had settled on a candidate in October almost always stuck with that choice. About 94% of those who planned on voting for the incumbent did so while only 5% who planned on voting for the challenger changed their minds and voted for the incumbent. Those who were undecided in October split their votes almost evenly between the incumbent and the challenger.
The next chart shows how voters broke down when it came to their orientation toward risk. To classify voters as more or less averse, we used a question that asked respondents if they would take a hypothetical job offer under different conditions; see the paper or this post for more details. More risk-neutral voters are shown on the left and more risk averse voters are shown on the right. For the most part, both groups stuck with whichever candidate they had expressed a preference for in the pre-election survey. However, those who were undecided in October broke differently depending on their level of risk aversion. Undecided risk-neutral voters broke overwhelmingly for the challenger while a majority of undecided risk-averse voters ended up voting for the incumbent.
What can this analysis tell us about this year's midterm elections? Ultimately, the fact that the smaller group of undecided risk neutral voters (we classified 28% of voters as risk neutral) broke more heavily against the incumbent canceled out with the smaller break toward the incumbent among the larger group of risk-averse voters (we classified 72% of voters as risk averse). If the 2010 congressional elections go like they did in 2008, then undecided voters may break relatively evenly for the incumbent and challenger, and pre-election polls should prove relatively accurate. However, these findings do suggest a potential strategy for Democratic incumbents* in tight races. Endangered incumbents may benefit from characterizing their challengers as "risky," with the aim of capitalizing on the risk-averse tendencies that most voters have. Such a strategy may help these incumbents win over a large share of late-deciding, risk-averse voters.
------------------
* Appealing to risk aversion is a strategy that either party's incumbents should benefit from. However, there are few endangered Republican incumbents in this election cycle, which makes this a particularly pertinent strategy for Democratic incumbents in 2010.
Slip slidin' away
You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip slidin' away
God only knows
God makes his plan
The information's unavailable
To the mortal man
We work our jobs
Collect our pay
Believe we're gliding down the highway
When in fact we're slip slidin' away
Slip slidin' away
Slip slidin' away
You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip slidin' away
9/29/10 -- In the only independent polling we've seen of this race, Alan Grayson trails former state Senator Dan Webster. The poll, condcted by Sunshine State News, shows Webster leading 43 percent to 36 percent. An incumbent congressman at 36 percent almost never wins; Grayson is in real trouble.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/fl/florida_8th_district_webster_vs_grayson-1254.html
Some excerpts from the Rolling Stone interview with Obama.
How anyone could look at what he had to deal with, what he has accomplished, and what Republicans have done AGAINST THE INTEREST of this country, and not get behind this President is an abomination.
Dems are going to wake up the morning after the elections and say, what have we done??? Maybe my vote would have not elected these loons of the right wing nuttery. Crazies who preach Anarchy and "Remedies" Revolutions.
I blame the MSM, the WH messaging for not seeing these loons, sooner and the liberal bloggers who have not done anything but bitch, according to which segment or interest they have in mind, at the time. The Press drooled over the Baggers, and not one word about Saturday's march of "One Nation".
That's where the MSM is these days. On the right wing's side.
Slip slidin' away
You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip slidin' away
God only knows
God makes his plan
The information's unavailable
To the mortal man
We work our jobs
Collect our pay
Believe we're gliding down the highway
When in fact we're slip slidin' away
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/wi/wisconsin_senate_feingold_vs_johnson-1577.html
The new Fox News poll of the Wisconsin Senate race has bad news for Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, with an eight-point lead for Republican businessman Ron Johnson.
The numbers: Johnson 52%, Feingold 44%. The survey of likely voters has a ±3% margin of error. There is no previous Fox News poll of this race. However, this poll was conducted through a Rasmussen offshoot, Pulse Opinion Research, which performs made-to-order robopolls. In the previous Rasmussen poll from two weeks ago, Johnson led by a similar margin of 51%-44%.
The TPM Poll Average gives Johnson a lead of 52.2%-43.6%.
Slip slidin' away
You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip slidin' away
God only knows
God makes his plan
The information's unavailable
To the mortal man
We work our jobs
Collect our pay
Believe we're gliding down the highway
When in fact we're slip slidin' away
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/in/indiana_senate_coats_vs_ellsworth-1209.html
In 1998, Republican Dan Coats retired from the Senate. His successor was popular two-term governor of the state Evan Bayh, son of the man whom Dan Quayle had defeated nearly two decades earlier. Bayh’s re-election in 2004 was easy, but 2010 was a different year. Polls showed him trailing or barely ahead of his potential GOP opponents after his vote in favor of the President’s health care plan. As a result, Bayh elected not to run.
The Democrats selected Congressman and former Vanderburgh County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth, who had won the competitive 8th District in 2006. Republicans selected Coats. Ellsworth would normally be a decent fit for the state, as his normally conservative voting record was consistent with Bayh’s. But his vote for the health care bill will likely be a millstone around his neck in the fall.
Slip slidin' away
You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip slidin' away
God only knows
God makes his plan
The information's unavailable
To the mortal man
We work our jobs
Collect our pay
Believe we're gliding down the highway
When in fact we're slip slidin' away
9/28/10 -- After sporting a significant lead in the early polling, Gov. Manchin's lead has dwindled away. He now trails Raese in two polls.
Manchin's problem is that voters like the way he's performing as Governor, but don't want to give another vote in the Senate for the Obama Administration. Unfortunately for him, there's a way for voters to do just that -- by voting for Raese. This is increasingly reminiscent of Kerry/Weld in Massachusetts -- voters liked Weld and didn't really like Kerry, but decided to keep Weld as Governor and send Kerry back to Washington.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/wv/west_virginia_senate_special_election_raese_vs_manchin-1673.html
Dems should use fear: Repubs as Grinches who steal grandma's Social Security.
Women are notably more risk-adverse, in politics, investing, life. Appeal to fear in women voters.
Point out ALL they've done.
It will only mean MORE democrats lose.