Why Alabama, and not New Jersey or Virginia, tells us more about 2016.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Partisans on both sides are attempting to read the tea leaves in the aftermath of the November 5th elections and determine what they can tell us about the 2016 presidential race. Two high profile gubernatorial contests, the New York City mayoral race, and a runoff election to fill a congressional seat in a conservative district in Alabama were on the docket. Throughout election night, pundits of the Democratic or Republican persuasion filled the airwaves with their spin on the “message” the election results send to the other side.
Most of the focus was placed on the two gubernatorial races. Due to their state-wide nature, and the fact both states are important in presidential election years, it makes sense those contests would be the focus of attention. Before we get too excited and start predicting the outcome of the presidential election in 2016, however, it may be wise to take a step back and understand what these results are really telling us.
What can we learn from the New Jersey gubernatorial election results? The main take away is that the incumbency advantage is alive and well. The best asset for any person running for reelection is the fact they already hold the office. The incumbency advantage helps with raising money, increased visibility in the media, and most importantly for the present discussion, it scares any quality challengers from stepping forward.
Chris Christie wasn’t running against a state-wide elected Democrat, or even a member of the New Jersey congressional delegation. Instead, he was challenged by a state senator who was an underfunded, unknown candidate. Are there other factors that played in to Christie’s victory? Of course. But when reading the tea leaves to apply what happened in New Jersey to the rest of the country, the key point is incumbency matters.
The lesson learned in Virginia is a little different. First, it was an open position. The state constitution limits governors to one term. As such, the incumbency advantage goes away. Second, the race for governor pitted two well-funded and capable candidates against one another. This was never going to be a blowout. So what is the lesson here? Demographic changes affect elections.
The commonwealth of Virginia, until recently, has been a reliable Republican stronghold. An influx of residents in the northern counties over the years, however, has changed the complexion of the electorate. That change in the population has moved Virginia from the “Red” column to the “Swing” column. Terry McAuliffe’s victory is just another example of the effects of demographic changes taking place in states like Virginia. We also need to keep in mind President Obama carried Virginia in 2012 and 2008. As such, the results from the governor’s race are just a continuation of that trend.
What can the mayoral election in New York City tell us about 2016? Not much. The state of New York is a blue state in presidential election years, and the NYC mayoral race had no effect on that trend. The simple lesson here is that it was time for change. New York has had a Republican mayor since 1994, and the GOP candidate this time out had strong ties to former mayor Rudy Giuliani. Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, was bringing forward new ideas while his opponent pledged to continue with how things have been done for the past 20 years. The voters in the Big Apple voted for change, plain and simple.
The one race that may have national implications is the congressional runoff race in Alabama. Yes, Alabama.
Up to this point the discussion has focused on the high profile races. It makes sense. These are easier stories to tell. But if you want to understand the trends taking place in the country that may have national implications, we need to turn our attention away from the large media buy campaigns, and get in the trenches. Specifically, we should focus on Alabama.
In the wake of the partial government shutdown, speculation has circulated about the long term viability of the Tea Party movement. Criticized by opponents and applauded by supporters, tea party backed members in the U.S. House have demonstrated they are willing to do whatever it takes to get their way. But what effect will it have on 2016? The race for Alabama’s 1st congressional district may be a window into the future.
Conventional wisdom argues that the tea party backed members of Congress are in safe districts. Due to gerrymandering and a homogenous electorate, the only way to take them out would be to challenge them on the right. With little room to their right, that is not likely going to happen. But a strange thing happened in Alabama. A tea party backed candidate was challenged on the left, and was defeated.
Bradley Byrne, an establishment Republican faced off with tea partier Dean Young in a runoff election to fill the vacant 1st congressional district seat in the House. Keeping in mind only Republicans were allowed to vote in this election, the resulting win for Byrne has broader implications than the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections. Why would a GOP runoff election in Alabama be more significant nationally than the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections? Because it brings into focus the battle taking place within the Republican Party.
The threat of being challenged in a primary by a tea partier has been enough to hold establishment Republicans’ feet to the fire. Due to gerrymandering, most congressional districts are classified as “safe.” Thus, whoever wins the primary wins the seat. A de facto general election, if you will. If an incumbent Republican veers too far to the middle, groups like The Club for Growth will seek out primary challengers who embrace the tea party ideals. Representative Frank Lucas from Oklahoma’s 3rd congressional district is currently being targeted. Up until now, it has been a formula that has worked. Several establishment Republicans have been taken out in primaries in the past few election cycles. The 1st congressional district runoff election in Alabama may signal a change, however.
The tea party movement, anchored in fiscal responsibility, has relied on the backing of the business community. Chief among the business community groups is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Instead of throwing their support behind tea partier Dean Young, the Chamber of Commerce actively supported the establishment candidate, Bradley Byrne. This break in the backing of the tea party has broader implications nationally than do the results in New Jersey and Virginia. If the business community pulls their support for the hardline tactics of the tea party, the funding that has backed the conservative movement may dry up, which might affect the political complexion in Washington and the field of presidential hopefuls in 2016.
So while the political pundits try to prognosticate what effects the 2013 elections will have on the presidential election in 2016, their inclination to look at the high profile campaigns may be providing them with false information. Incumbency advantage, demographic changes, and the simple desire for change can sum up the results of the gubernatorial and NYC mayoral contests. Focusing on those races may cause many to miss the bigger story: a shift in support within the business community. Is this an end to the tea party movement? Probably not. But it is likely the most significant takeaway point from the 2013 election results.
By: Brandon W. Lenoir, Ph.D., Political Scientist, Oklahoma State University