Why did so many Senators/Senatorial nominees underperform so much?

[Calthrina950]

The question is as in the title. I've already touched upon the growing rural-small towns/urban-surburban divide elsewhere, but now I want to come to this specific question. Virtually every Senatorial victor (and loser) did worse, and in many instances, far worse, than 2012. To give a few examples:

1.  Mitt Romney did ~9% worse than in 2012, lost two counties (Summit County and Grand County) to Jenny Wilson, and only won Salt Lake County by 3 percentage points, failing to obtain an absolute majority.

2. Kristen Gillibrand did badly in much of Upstate New York, and got 66% of the vote overall, much lower than the 72% she received in 2012.

3. Tom Carper lost Sussex County, the first time in 18 years that he lost a county, and got just under 60%.

4. Angus King lost two counties in Maine (Piscataquis and Somerset), the first time ever that he has lost any counties, though percentage-wise, his performance was comparable to 2012.

5. Bernie Sanders failed to break 70% in Vermont, and only won Essex County with a plurality (mind you, Patrick Leahy lost Essex County two years ago, and barely got to 60%).

6. Elizabeth Warren lost Plymouth County and just barely got over 60%. This is the first time in decades, possibly since John Kennedy in 1960, that a Democrat has lost a county in this manner.

7. Debbie Stabenow crashed in rural Michigan, only defeating John James by 6%.

8. Bill Nelson did far worse throughout all of Florida than in any of his three previous elections, and was wiped out in the Florida Panhandle.

9. Phil Bredesen was annihilated in rural Tennessee, winning only the three counties (Haywood, Davidson, Shelby), carried by Hillary Clinton two years ago.

10. Maria Cantwell failed to break 60% in Washington, unlike in 2012, and did not win any counties in the eastern portion of the state.

11. John Barrasso failed to crack 70% in Wyoming, and lost both Teton and Albany Counties.

12. Claire McCaskill was annihilated in rural Missouri, winning only one Trump county (Clay County).

13. Sherrod Brown failed to improve upon his performance in 2012, and did poorly in the once traditionally Democratic areas in the southeastern regions of the state.

14. Amy Klobuchar lost many rural counties that she had won in 2012, and got 5% less of the overall vote. She still managed to crack 60%, however, due to her performance in the Twin Cities metropolitan area.

15. Ted Cruz did far worse than in 2012, only managing to beat Beto O'Rourke by ~3 percentage points, and losing many former Republican strongholds, such as Tarrant County, Fort Bend County, Harris County, Nueces County, Williamson County, and Hays County.

16. Dianne Feinstein only beat Kevin De León by 8%, and lost almost every non-coastal county to him, including all of the Republican counties.

17. Joe Manchin beat Patrick Morrisey by only 3%, and did significantly worse than in any of his prior elections. Moreover, he failed to obtain an absolute majority for the first time ever.

The only Senators to do significantly better than in 2012 were Bob Casey, Tammy Baldwin, Tim Kaine, Ben Cardin, Martin Heinrich, and Mazie Hirono. Hirono was the only Senator to break 70%; Cardin got 64%, much higher than the 56% he received last time; and Casey, Baldwin, and Heinrich won by double digits.

What happened? Discuss below.

[Xing]

Polarization and partisanship matter much more than incumbency.

[Calthrina950]

Polarization and partisanship matter much more than incumbency.

This hasn't always been true, though. Why did they manifest to such an extent this year?

[YE]

Polarization and partisanship matter much more than incumbency.

This hasn't always been true, though. Why did they manifest to such an extent this year?

Because the GOP has slowly since the 1970s become more of a cult and it reached a new level at some point between 2014 and 2018.

[Xing]

Polarization and partisanship matter much more than incumbency.

This hasn't always been true, though. Why did they manifest to such an extent this year?

Well, it was very true in 2016. We've just become very divided and uninterested in other points of view, and more and more races have become nationalized. You saw it in the House too, with a lot of Republican incumbents in Democratic-leaning districts doing worse than Trump, even though Trump did badly in their districts. It was certainly quite extreme this year, but it's not exactly sudden. We're been getting progressively more polarized and partisan for years now.

[Calthrina950]

Polarization and partisanship matter much more than incumbency.

This hasn't always been true, though. Why did they manifest to such an extent this year?

Because the GOP has slowly since the 1970s become more of a cult and it reached a new level at some point between 2014 and 2018.

But it's not just the GOP alone, not in terms of increasing partisanship. Democrats too have become increasingly partisan, and the urban areas are now completely out of reach for the Republicans, just like rural areas are now completely out of reach for Republicans.

[YE]

Polarization and partisanship matter much more than incumbency.

This hasn't always been true, though. Why did they manifest to such an extent this year?

Because the GOP has slowly since the 1970s become more of a cult and it reached a new level at some point between 2014 and 2018.

But it's not just the GOP alone, not in terms of increasing partisanship. Democrats too have become increasingly partisan, and the urban areas are now completely out of reach for the Republicans, just like rural areas are now completely out of reach for Republicans.

Yep, because as the GOP becomes more of a cult, the Dems have, despite their move to the center in the late 80s and 90s on economic issues, been forced to react and become more extreme culturally.

[Calthrina950]

Polarization and partisanship matter much more than incumbency.

This hasn't always been true, though. Why did they manifest to such an extent this year?

Because the GOP has slowly since the 1970s become more of a cult and it reached a new level at some point between 2014 and 2018.

But it's not just the GOP alone, not in terms of increasing partisanship. Democrats too have become increasingly partisan, and the urban areas are now completely out of reach for the Republicans, just like rural areas are now completely out of reach for Republicans.

Yep, because as the GOP becomes more of a cult, the Dems have, despite their move to the center in the late 80s and 90s on economic issues, been forced to react and become more extreme culturally.

That is understandable. But still, it's such a shame to see how bad polarization has become.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Polarization and partisanship matter much more than incumbency.

This hasn't always been true, though. Why did they manifest to such an extent this year?

Why wouldn't they? When you think about it, why would IN/MO/ND vote for a Democrat. It isn't like NJ was ever going to go for Hugin. What reason to people have to support the other side.

[Calthrina950]

Polarization and partisanship matter much more than incumbency.

This hasn't always been true, though. Why did they manifest to such an extent this year?

Why wouldn't they? When you think about it, why would IN/MO/ND vote for a Democrat. It isn't like NJ was ever going to go for Hugin. What reason to people have to support the other side.

Notice the first part of my question: These trends have not always been true. That is what I'm trying to get at here.

[JG]

The question is as in the title. I've already touched upon the growing rural-small towns/urban-surburban divide elsewhere, but now I want to come to this specific question. Virtually every Senatorial victor (and loser) did worse, and in many instances, far worse, than 2012. To give a few examples:


2. Kristen Gillibrand did badly in much of Upstate New York, and got 66% of the vote overall, much lower than the 72% she received in 2012.

What happened? Discuss below.

An article mentioned Gillibrand barely spent any money in her reelection campaign this year, probably gearing up for a presidential run, while she spent 14 millions in 2012.

[Calthrina950]

The question is as in the title. I've already touched upon the growing rural-small towns/urban-surburban divide elsewhere, but now I want to come to this specific question. Virtually every Senatorial victor (and loser) did worse, and in many instances, far worse, than 2012. To give a few examples:


2. Kristen Gillibrand did badly in much of Upstate New York, and got 66% of the vote overall, much lower than the 72% she received in 2012.

What happened? Discuss below.

Gillibrand barely spent any money at all in her reelection campaign this year, probably gearing up for a presidential run, while she spent 14 millions in 2012.

That is understandable. I did note elsewhere that Gillibrand, as well as Sanders and Warren, probably underperformed because of the presidential hype/planning that has swirled around them. Nevertheless, I didn't think she would have lost as much ground as she did.

[UWS]

When it comes to Ted Cruz, I think it's because of larger Hispanic turnout and because of his unlikeability.

[Calthrina950]

When it comes to Ted Cruz, I think it's because of larger Hispanic turnout and because of his unlikeability.

What about Stabenow in your home state of Michigan?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Polarization and partisanship matter much more than incumbency.

[Oryxslayer]

I think a better question would be why some states broke the trend. For the ones identified, over half were ones where the other party put up a sh**t-tier opponent, and one had a indie crack the opposition vote.

With that out of the way, we basically are left with a map that is the product of Polarization, Partisanship, and Turnout. In the past, when a race was uncompetative you could count on two factors boosting your total: victor voters and an opposition incentived to not vote. Victor voters are voters who subconsciously "want" to cast ballots for victors, and the more a race looks like a landslide, the more the victor voters piled on historically - a self-reinforcing effect. The second traditional factor was that if the opposition had no chance, it wouldn't turn out because voting was perceived to be less important.

Both of these effects were tempered by the overarching national trends. Partisanship has overridden victory in more voters minds, and so more voters now cast votes for DOA opposition. Polarization boosted turnout and incentivised voting. Basically, the traditional incumbency effects continue to wear thin and partisanship bears itself more prominently.

[UWS]

When it comes to Ted Cruz, I think it's because of larger Hispanic turnout and because of his unlikeability.

What about Stabenow in your home state of Michigan?

John James is a charismatic candidate and his African-American heritage might have been helpful a little bit. And remember that Trump won Michigan over Clinton in 2016.

[Dr. Arch]

Cantwell will likely break 60% once all the ballots are counted.

As for the overall trends, further polarization between urban and non-urban areas. The common pattern is that, even in solid states, incumbents and winners lost their opposing equivalent regions in ways they hadn't before (see Stabenow/Gillibrand in rural MI/NY versus Barrasso/Romney in more urban WY/UT).

[Calthrina950]

Cantwell will likely break 60% once all the ballots are counted.

As for the overall trends, further polarization between urban and non-urban areas. The common pattern is that, even in solid states, incumbents and winners lost their opposing equivalent regions in ways they hadn't before (see Stabenow/Gillibrand in rural MI/NY versus Barrasso/Romney in more urban WY/UT).

This is what stands out to me the most. It's clear that the minority electorate in those safe states is no longer willing to bend as much for majority party nominees, even when there is a sacrificial lamb opponent involved.

[Dr. Arch]

Cantwell will likely break 60% once all the ballots are counted.

As for the overall trends, further polarization between urban and non-urban areas. The common pattern is that, even in solid states, incumbents and winners lost their opposing equivalent regions in ways they hadn't before (see Stabenow/Gillibrand in rural MI/NY versus Barrasso/Romney in more urban WY/UT).

This is what stands out to me the most. It's clear that the minority electorate in those safe states is no longer willing to bend as much for majority party nominees, even when there is a sacrificial lamb opponent involved.

Yep, and if dumpster fire politics continues to be the norm with this administration, more urban areas are likely to shift further away alongside those that have already started shifting. In particular, we can think of the suburbs in TX, GA, and WI (particularly WOW) as the next to continue with wild swings nearing potential flips.

That spells a great deal of danger for the Republicans, who have relied heavily on these suburbs to buoy them in their safer states. States like TX, GA, AZ, NC, SC, and to a lesser extent, KS and NE are starting to soften. Meanwhile, other states that Republicans depended heavily on with similar coalitions to be competitive will start becoming impossible à la VA and CO--think NV, MN, and even possibly AK with the right candidate.

[Calthrina950]

Cantwell will likely break 60% once all the ballots are counted.

As for the overall trends, further polarization between urban and non-urban areas. The common pattern is that, even in solid states, incumbents and winners lost their opposing equivalent regions in ways they hadn't before (see Stabenow/Gillibrand in rural MI/NY versus Barrasso/Romney in more urban WY/UT).

This is what stands out to me the most. It's clear that the minority electorate in those safe states is no longer willing to bend as much for majority party nominees, even when there is a sacrificial lamb opponent involved.

Yep, and if dumpster fire politics continues to be the norm with this administration, more urban areas are likely to shift further away alongside those that have already started shifting. In particular, we can think of the suburbs in TX, GA, and WI (particularly WOW) as the next to continue with wild swings nearing potential flips.

That spells a great deal of danger for the Republicans, who have relied heavily on these suburbs to buoy them in their safer states. States like TX, GA, AZ, NC, SC, and to a lesser extent, KS and NE are starting to soften. Meanwhile, other states that Republicans depended heavily on with similar coalitions to be competitive will start becoming impossible à la VA and CO--think NV, MN, and even possibly AK with the right candidate.

That much is true. And what you say about Colorado is especially relevant. As I've noted elsewhere, Jared Polis absolutely destroyed Walker Stapleton in the Denver metropolitan area, Boulder, and Fort Collins. Even places like Weld County, El Paso County, and Douglas County, which Stapleton still won by double-digit margins, are no longer as heavily Republican as they used to be. And Democrats swept all of the statewide offices in Colorado. Colorado is for sure on it's way to becoming a Safe Democratic state. Virginia is a Safe Democratic State now; the defeat of Gillepsie, Stewart, Comstock, Brat, and Taylor has made that perfectly clear. And Nevada, with the victories of Rosen and Sisolak, is on it's way to becoming one.

[UWS]

For Brown it must be because Trump won Ohio by 8 points in 2016 which is why pollsters originally indicated him as more vulnerable than he actually was in the midterms.

[IceSpear]

Maria Cantwell actually flipped Whitman County as more votes have come in. She could flip Spokane too.

[Calthrina950]

Maria Cantwell actually flipped Whitman County as more votes have come in. She could flip Spokane too.

That is good to hear. She might manage to reach the 60% mark after all.