Nobody should have expected a red wave, and why I never predicted one

 Tuesday was quite a pleasant day here in northern Ohio.  Unseasonably so, as though summer would continue endlessly.  Yet all things come to an end, summers included, and the search for a perfect wave, red or otherwise, will come to nought but skin cancer, sand rashes and eventually, the need for an adult-ass, fucking job.  This morning, we untangle the riddled knot of a bad metaphor of a... oh, fuck it.  Where was that red wave?  Um... did you see me predict a red wave?  No.  Well, perhaps you did, but if you did, you were hallucinating.  I made no such prediction.  I predicted Republican gains, which we saw.  I made no assertion of a wave.  Yet somehow, a red wave became a default prediction, and I must now address why it didn't happen.  It should never have been anyone's default prediction.  Let us elaborate.

The first basic observation here is that a wave election is a deviation from the norm.  It is unusual.  Your baseline expectation should never be a deviation from the norm.  It should be the norm.  If you look to a deviation from the norm as your baseline, something is already fucked up in your methodology.  How does that happen?  It is actually remarkably easy based on heuristic biases.  There have been a few prominent wave elections in recent decades.  1994.  2006.  2010.  These elections are so prominent in the political memory that when you think of midterm elections, these come immediately to mind.  This is called the availability heuristic.  When you rely on examples that come to mind easily, you are not generating examples that are representative.  In fact, you may be doing the opposite.  The 1994, 2006 and 2010 midterm elections come to mind easily when you think about midterm elections, so they affect how you think about the next midterm, but they come to mind easily precisely because they are so unusual.  This is why the availability heuristic leads to biases is cognition.  What elections do you not recall?  1982.  1986.  1990.  Normal elections.  1998 was unusual in that the president's party gained seats, but it was not a wave.  Same for 2002.  Are you starting to see my point?

So let's talk about the wave elections, why they turned into waves, and how they differed from 2022.  Then you'll see why I was not referring to them when writing about 2022.

Consider 1994.  Let's head to FRED.  That's the Federal Reserve Economic Data, for those who might forget.  We had solid economic growth throughout all of '94, including 5.5% in Q2.  Hardly any inflation to speak of, not that inflation has been a consistent predictor, but just sayin'...  Point being, the economy was fine.  What was happening, politically?  There were several forces at work.  The big one was something you are likely to have forgotten.  This was the conclusion of forty years of Democratic domination of the House.  Yes, the Democrats held the House for forty years.  Why?  Also, how?

Also, what the fuck?

Well, it wasn't exactly domination in the sense of Donald Trump dominating Lindsey Graham.  There was no ball gag or gimp suit.  Remember that for a long time, the South voted D, essentially because they have this thing about grudges.  They hold them.  For a fucking long-ass time.  So, they held a grudge against the Republican Party for the Civil War, and Reconstruction.  It took a long time for them to shift over to the GOP.  But the thing is, prior to 1994, when was the last midterm with a Democratic president?  1978.  And prior to that?  1966, during which time then Southern Democrats were in their heyday.  The shift was gradual, and 1994 was the culmination of long-running trends.

What else was happening?  Policy, and this will be the consistent thread, so pay attention.  Take notes, there will be a quiz at the end.  Bill Clinton had a few stumbles out of the gate, and regardless of what one thinks of his 1993 budget in policy terms, it was a political loser.  So much so that when former Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-PA) announced initially that she would oppose the bill, then changed her mind to cast the pivotal yes vote, Republicans chanted, "goodbye, Marjorie!" on the floor of the House as she did so.

Yup.

As a post-script, Chelsea married her son, so let's call that dowry.

Anyway, point being, Margolies-Mezvinsky was the most prominent example of Democrats suffering for unpopular policies and the electoral backlash, which was known at the time.  See: the GOP chant as Margolies-Mezvinsky cast her vote.

The magnitude of the Republican gains in 1994 was surprising, at least in part because the GOP hadn't gotten the majority in 40 years, but the electoral backlash against the '93 budget was something that everyone saw coming.  As I said, it was the size of the wave that was a surprise, based at least in part on the idea that the Democrats just owned the House.  In fact, in 1994, one of my undergrad advisors, Jack Pitney, co-wrote a book about House Republicans called Congress' Permanent Minority.  At the last minute, during the summer of '94, he and his co-author added a question mark to the title.  Congress' Permanent Minority?  Nice move, Jackie-boy.  I should have learned the uncertainty and humility embedded in that decision at a younger age, but we're all stupid and stubborn.  He tried, so don't blame him for me.

Anywho, point being, 1994 saw an historic wave amid a good economy, based on partisan resetting and a policy backlash.

There is some real relevance there for 2010, at least.  In 2006 and 2008, the Democrats won a fuckload of seats (I'll address 2006 shortly), putting them way over the number that they should have had.  (There is a weird, difficult and oddly-shaky concept called "exposure," but that's a different fight.)  Basically, temporary shocks to the system gave the Democrats two cycles of gains in locations that were hard to hold.  But what about the economy in 2010?  In 2007 and 2008, the economy tanked, but the recession ended in 2009, and by Q2 of 2010, we had 3.9% growth.  And needless to say, no inflation.  What was really happening beyond that?  There was a law that isn't actually called "Obamacare," but whatever.  Anyway, at the time, it was rather unpopular, and if you want a cite on just how unpopular and just how much electoral damage it did to the Democrats, try Nyhan et al., "One Vote Out of Step?" in American Politics Research, 2012.  Obamacare was really unpopular, and the Democrats who voted for it faced a big penalty.  That's an important piece.  There is more to it, but that gives you a window.

Hmmm... historical gains being reset, backlash against an unpopular policy... this all sounds familiar, doesn't it?

How about 2006?  Remember how 2002 was weird?  What does that mean?  It means you had a sequence of elections with Republican gains!  Were there any policies creating a backlash?  Yes, but not a law.  Instead, there was a backlash against the Iraq War.  George W. Bush's approval ratings had the wildest swings we have seen, and by the time we got to 2006, it wasn't just that they had turned negative, it was that there was a backlash against a specific policy.

Historical resetting, policy backlash.

How was the economy, in 2006, lest I forget?  Growth throughout.  Only 1% in Q2, but that's still positive, and there hadn't been a recession since 2001.

OK, hotshot, pop quiz.  (Shoot the tires NOW, dumbass.)  What do these elections have in common?  Historical correction, combined with a policy backlash.

Is that the backdrop of 2022?  No.  Mill's methods.  Johnny Stuart.  Similarity and difference.  What do the waves have in common with each other, and did the 2022 circumstances look like those?  The waves were set up by a kind of reset when one party had a fuckload of sets to be reallocated, combined with deeply unpopular policy creating a backlash.  I see neither, and saw neither, so I predicted no wave.

Did the Republicans make smaller gains than one might have expected?  Yes, but that's a different question from whether or not there should have been a wave.

Nope.  No wave.

So now we add into the data set the year of 2022.  A year in which the out-party made small gains.  And yet a fundamentally normal year.  As the years go rolling by, we include 2022 into the models, adjusting downward expected gains that the out-party will make in midterm elections.  But a wave?

I never saw it.

OK, I'm just going to post a lot of music this morning.  First up, The Claudettes have a new album out.  They're great, get the album.  "The Waves," from The Claudettes Go Out!

Next up, Malcolm Braff, "Crimson Waves," from Inside.

Next, Sea Level, "Tidal Wave," from their self-titled album.

Back for some more jazz.  Let's hear from the best ever to do it.  This is actually Joe Pass solo, "Wave," from Ella Fitzgerald and Joe Pass, Sophisticated Lady.

The modern genius of jazz piano, Tigran Hamasyan, "What The Waves Brought," from A Fable.

How about some more rock?  The secret to Concrete Blonde was guitarist, James Mankey.  "The Wave That Got Awaay," from JAM.

Hmm... There's something wrong here.  No bluegrass.  Let's wrap things up with some bluegrass from Norman Blake.  "Witch of the Waves," from The Fields of November.