Was it a Wave? What does it Mean?

Abstract

AbstractIn the instant analysis that followed, pundits dubbed the 2014 midterms an election “wave” for the Republican Party. Our article argues that “wave” is one of the most abused terms in American political discourse. Although political waves do exist, our article argues that they come in a variety of shapes, are created by a constellation of factors beyond anti-incumbency, and can have a number of different effects on the next national election cycle. Our analysis shows that the 2014 wave (if there was a wave in the ocean) was neither as large as pundits suggested nor as politically impactful as some spinners have claimed. Elections are determined by terrain and climate, both of which favored Republicans in 2014. Republicans captured or defended Senate seats where they should have in nine deep-red states. Focusing on gubernatorial and Senate campaigns in seven purple states, we see that Republicans won eight out of the 12 contests and five out of the nine most competitive contests. Although there has been an immense amount of attention to turnout, our analysis demonstrates that Republican victories were sometimes due to turnout, sometimes due to performance among independents, and sometimes due to a combination of these factors. This mixed picture complicates the analysis of the Republican victories, suggesting that the Rising American Electorate (youth, minorities, women) will not simply carry the Democrats to victory in 2016, and that anti-Obama public opinion alone will not be enough to deliver the White House to Republicans. It also provides yet more evidence that there is not a one-size-fits-all strategy when it comes to campaign focus and targeting.