Partisan Districts, Partisan Votes

John Sides asks today for the single factor that best predicts which Democratic House incumbents lost their seats on Tuesday. It’s not ideology, he says, or how you voted on TARP, or any of those things:

The best predictor by far is none of those. It is simply how Democratic their district is. In our dataset, Eric McGhee and I measure that with the percentage of the vote that Obama received in 2008….In all 402 contested House elections, the 2008 presidential vote in that district would explain 83% of the variation in the Democratic House candidate’s vote share. Nothing else in our dataset comes close.

I’m a big fan of simple structural explanations like this, but I’ve got a big problem here. Sides’s chart is above, and it does indeed seem to show a very clean relationship. But a big reason for that is the large number of districts that are wildly partisan: above 60% is entirely Democratic and below 40% is (almost) entirely Republican.

This is no surprise, and also not very interesting. Of course massively partisan districts are highly likely to return partisan results. For one thing, most of them are hardly even contested.

But what happens if you stay in the general vicinity of the middle? That’s the thick black box I added to to chart, and it shows only districts where Obama won 40-60% of the vote in 2008. I’ve enlarged it on the right. Just by eyeballing it, it looks like there’s still a relationship, but it’s a much weaker one. Note, for example, that the Republican pickups (bright red) are spread fairly evenly across the entire range. The overall regression line might be just as steep (I can’t say just by looking), but it’s definitely a lot muddier. It certainly explains way less than 83% of the variation in the 2010 vote.

A model that gets most of its power from its extremes doesn’t strike me as very explanatory. Everyone knows there’s no action there. What we want is a model that explains what happens in districts that are truly contested. Looking solely at the 2008 presidential votes doesn’t seem to get us very far there.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.