Election After Action Report

It's op/ed smack-down time: the WSJ v. USAT. The topic: analyzing the significance of Tuesday's electoral outcomes.

USAT's editorial page posits that the results are, while good for Republicans, a message of voter anger and anti-incumbency:

This is not a picture of a political tide running in one direction. It is a picture of voters venting their frustration on whomever happens to be in power.

However, the WSJ sees it in terms of regional trends:

Tuesday's vote turned out to be typical of off-year elections, with the consolidation of longtime partisan regional trends.

Republicans have good reason to whistle Dixie. They picked up two more statehouses down South and are leading in Louisiana's runoff next week...Democrats found more solace in the Northeast, their main national bastion.

The winner in this analytical face-off? Why, the good folks at the Journal. This success is at least in part the result of looking at trends over time, with a larger set of observations, than trying to create a pattern by looking at a handful of elections, which is what the USAT analyst did.

Plus, since only one of the two governor's in question were actually incumbents, and since the incumbent mayor of Philly got to stay, I am unclear on where a radcial anti-incumbent mood can be idenitified. Indeed, it sounds like an extension of the incorrect McAuliffe/Dean/Pelosi reCAL thesis.

Posted by Steven Taylor at November 6, 2024 11:10 AM | TrackBack