An analysis of the Congressional Elections of 2006
I was originally going to do a big post of the Democratic gains a few days ago, but decided not to as other sites were doing a much better job of it. Instead, I had a closer look at the results and of the demographics of the Congressional Districts that fell to the Democrats. The overall pattern turned out to be suprisingly clear and, from my point of view, very pleasing.
Of the 29 districts gained by the Democrats, 17 have above average levels of manufacturing employment, 15 have below average levels of professional/managerial occupations and in 13 of them less than 25% of the population have degrees. Whats more, only 5 districts had low levels of manufacturing employment, only 5 high numbers of people in professional/managerial occupations and in just 3 districts was the proportion of people with degrees higher than 33%.
Geographically a similer pattern emerges; 19 of the 29 gains were entirely in (or in the case of PA-8 partially in) what could be thought of as an extended Rust Belt, stretching from New England to Eastern Iowa and also running down through the isolated mining communities of Appalachia to pick up struggling textile towns in North Carolina. In the Interior West (an area long the subject of Democratic fantasies) just three districts fell to the Democrats, while the party gained only two classic Northeastern suburban districts.
This pattern also shows itself in the Senate (both Bob Casey jr and Sherrod Brown swept to landslides on the votes of the industrial working class, impressive inroads into working class rural areas won Missouri for McCaskill, the votes of the industrial north of Rhode Island ended the Chafee dynasty, while a credible showing in Southwest Virginia clinched it for Webb) and in the exit polls, which show both much clearer class lines than in 2004, and gains for the Democrats among religious, especially Catholic, voters; an indication that the power of the wedge issue has declined sharply over the past two years.
It would seem that the return of millions of blue collar workers to the Democratic fold was the main reason for the first national victory for the party for a decade. That the Rustbelt lashed out at the Republicans should not be too suprising (after all, this is the part of America hurt the most by Bush’s economic policies and an area that continues to bleed crucial manufacturing jobs), although perhaps questions could be asked as to why it happend now and not two or four years ago. A short answer would be that the Republican party has (justifiably) lost it’s status as the Party of Moral Values over the past two years, while the Democrats actually showed some intelligence in picking candidates and issues to run on… and which issues to avoid like the plague.
But what now of the future? Ever since the disaster of 1994, the Democrats have been essentially directionless, both in terms of policy and ideas, but also in terms of deciding what parts of America to target in elections. This election seems to answer the question of direction; if the Democrats want to keep (and maybe even expand) their shiny new House majority, then they will have to focus on economic issues (I have a suspicion that protectionist trade policies are something we could be seeing a lot of over the next few years), ignore the sort of wedge issues that caused them electoral defeat after electoral defeat over the past decade, and keep on spending money and finding good candidates to run in the Greater Rustbelt. It would be an act of crass stupidity if the Democrats choose to instead focus their attention on rich people with liberal social views or on the Interior West (the great pipe dream of failed Democratic candidates and strategists). But if this election has taught us anything, it’s that crass stupidity on the part of the Democratic leadership is, hopefully, a thing of the past.
