Spin to Win, Not to Understand

Political scientists are just beginning to try to figure out exactly what happened in the 2010 election. Typically they emphasize structural factors such as: 1) incumbent parties typically lose seats in midterm elections, 2) the Democrats were holding a lot of seats in Republican-leaning districts after their successes in 2006 and 2008, and 3) the economy was bad, and voters typically hold incumbent parties responsible for this. Models based on these factors predicted roughly a 45-seat loss in the House; the 60+ seat loss may suggest that other factors--unpopular votes on the stimulus package and on health care reform, recruitment of an unusually strong group of Republican candidates--were also important.

But whatever the truth about this election, politicians on all sides are vying to make their interpretation--their "spin"--become the conventional wisdom, so that they can claim a mandate for their favored policies. The spin is based not on a careful study of the election but on the hopes and dreams of these politicians. For moderate Democrats, it's that Obama went too far to the left; for lefties, it's that he didn't go far enough. For Republicans, it's that Americans have turned against Obama's policies. For Tea Partiers, it's that fundamental reform is needed. And for Obama himself, as he argued in his press conference, it's that Americans are frustrated with the economy. As Jonathan Bernstein suggests, an election is just the beginning of the struggle; the battle over the meaning of the election is arguably just as important.