• Comment (3)

Election Results: What 2011 Says About 2012

What Results in Ohio, Mississippi Mean for next year's election

November 9, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Politicians beware: what the voters giveth, they also taketh away.

That's the message many election watchers are taking from Tuesday's results and predict will hold true in 2012.

From Ohio's rejection of legislation that would have curbed public employee union rights to Arizona's dismissal of the state politician who authored a controversial immigration law, the same voters who embraced Tea Party conservatives in 2010 pushed back on perceived overreaches of power.

"They have over-interpreted their mandates or over-estimated the public's appetite for all of the agenda items in victorious wish list," says William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former policy advisor to President Clinton. He said it's a pattern that dates back to 2004 and is a message voters have sent to both Republicans and Democrats.

[Incumbents win big-city mayoral elections.]

In addition to the results in Arizona and Ohio, conservatives also saw setbacks in Mississippi, where voters by a wider than expected margin turned back a so-called 'personhood' amendment that would have designated fertilized eggs as people, and voters in Maine restored Election Day voter registration after the Republican-controlled Legislature passed a law eliminating it.

"Let's face it, this is one of the first 2012 elections," said Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, reflecting on the results. "The voters are saying this is an extreme agenda, don't take away our basic rights, don't mess with Democracy."

In both Maine and Ohio, Republicans were swept into power in 2010 and politicians sought to capitalize on their perceived mandate.

Daniel Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University, says it's important not to interpret the union win over Republican Gov. John Kasich's proposal limiting public union rights as an endorsement of Democrats.

"I wouldn't use the election results in Ohio to predict an Obama victory in Ohio or elsewhere, but I do think that this is a good example of what can happen if one political party gets too greedy," he says. "It tends to trigger a backlash and right now Gov. John Kasich and Ohio's Republicans are licking their wounds."

[Opinion: 2012 should be about ideas.]

Voters in the Buckeye state also overwhelmingly rejected the individual mandate in the national health care reform law championed by Obama, though the result will not impact the federal law's effect.

Galston points to Virginia's latest results, where Republicans gained control of the state Senate, as evidence that conservatism isn't being rejected—just extremism.

"If you look at the results in Virginia, it appears that sort of a pragmatic brand of moderate conservatism, seen as problem solving rather than point scoring, is reasonably attractive to voters," he says.

That's something that should hearten Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor currently seeking the GOP presidential nomination, and concern his conservative rival Texas Gov. Rick Perry and incumbent Democrat President Obama, Galston says.

[Expert says if Election Were Today, Romney would win.]

"If (Republicans) look at these results squarely and honestly, they can reach only one conclusion and that is that they would be better off nominating a moderate conservative than a movement conservative," he says. "If they insist on purity, they're going to endanger their chances of victory."

But both Galston and Tokaji say the country's political party structure inhibits moderation.

"Maybe this will be a lesson to people on both sides that if you go too far, you're going to pay a price. I'm not quite so optimistic because I think in both political parties the base still has a lot of power," Tokaji said.

Galston was equally skeptical.

"The American people are looking for a point of equipoise in a political system that is very poorly structured to provide that," he says. "The voters in the middle – the moderates and independents – are sloshing back and forth from election to election hoping that somehow the political system will hit that sweet spot."

Tags:
campaigns,
elections

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I've always considered myself a Republican, but I am also a union member. I'm so glad this message was sent to the GOP yesterday in Ohio. I work for Verizon which is a healthy profitable company. The CEO makes 300 times as much as an average employee. The CEO is also trying to take away pension/healthcare benefits and sending jobs to India.This seems to be ok to all the Republican politicians that are supposedly representing me. To be honest it seems to be ok to most of the Dem pols also. I will be giving my support next

November to the party that I feel will better represent the middle class VS corporate greed. There's got to be some sort of social contract. If I were rich wouldn't it be in my best interest that the other members of society (even though they are less fortunate than me) are walking around with jobs, healthcare, and hope for a great future? I am not talking about direct handouts here but a system that provides the opportunity for a middle class life for anyone willing to work for it. I don't understand how we can have heartless CEO's going after the healthcare/pensions of workers and even sending American jobs overseas. And the politicians who are supposedly representing us are also millionaires who don't seem to have a problem with this. This next election my top priority is who will better represent the struggling American middle class.

truedat1 of NJ 10:39PM November 09, 2011

This article hits the nail on the head. What Americans want are pragmatic problem-solving politicians. What we don't want are extremists that get elected with 51 percent of the vote and somehow think they have a mandate to do whatever they please. Last I saw Democrats comprise 43 percent of the electorate and Republicans are 33 percent, in other words, neither represents a majority.

Government is not broken, how we elect people is. We have a system of caucuses and primaries to nominate people and those generally have very low voter turnouts. So, even a smaller minority of people are involved in the nominating process, effectively leaving out all moderates. The moderates and pragmatics are hugely underrepresented in this country. We need open cross-over primaries in every state, then we won't have candidates who lean over backwards to appeal to their minority bases and leave the rest of us out in the cold. If we don't do this, then every election will become a "wave" election. We will keep kicking out the obstinate and the ideologues until we can find people who can get something done.

Mr. Reasonable of ID 6:58PM November 09, 2011

The message that all politicians should take this is that business as usual isn't acceptable anymore by either party and incumbents need to take notice that the voters are sick and tired of the unwillingness of our politicians to enact reform of the entire political landscape. If they don't set term limts for congressman and senators the voters will. If our elected officials don't take a stance on campiagn reform it won't matter where they get the illicit funds from voters will still get rid of you. Start working for the people again not lobbyists.

Victor R Romano of IL 5:59PM November 09, 2011

Photo Galleries

Women on Death Row

Only 12 women have been executed on death row in the U.S. since 1976.

advertisement

Latest Videos